life philosophy essay

Home — Essay Samples — Philosophy — Personal Philosophy — My Personal Philosophy of Life

My Personal Philosophy of Life

Categories: Personal Philosophy

About this sample

Words: 495 |

Published: Mar 5, 2024

Words: 495 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

Expert in: Philosophy

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

7 pages / 3115 words

1 pages / 413 words

1 pages / 557 words

4 pages / 1689 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Personal Philosophy

Life is how we go about day by day, month by month, year by year. Our actions, even the slightest, can twist and turn our paths like a labyrinth. Life is quite unpredictable, though it is what we make of it. Whatever happens in [...]

Developing a personal teaching philosophy is essential to defining the way an educator shapes the minds of their students. My teaching philosophy essay reflects my belief that the role of education extends far beyond the [...]

Education is a powerful force that shapes the future of individuals and societies. As an educator, my personal philosophy of education serves as the guiding compass for my teaching practices and the principles that underpin my [...]

Philosophy in nursing stems from providing competent and optimal care to patients and communities. These values are the stepping stones to be a successful nurse. For as long as I can remember I have been overwhelmed with a [...]

When I think about what phrase that is significant in my life it would be “Just Do It”. I know that it might seem funny that I would choose the Nike slogan as a phrase that is significant in my life. In saying this it is not [...]

There are many reasons why the tale of “The Myth of Sisyphus” is important to Albert Camus, for one, it is an allegory for what it means to be human. Camus expertly dissects Sisyphus’ existence and relates it to three final [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Life Philosophy 101 – An Introduction

Personal life philosophies are not a common subject and quality information on them can be difficult to find. They can tend to be grouped with other more prescriptive philosophies or reduced to personal slogans like bumper stickers or t-shirts.

Personal Life Philosophies are unique in that there are as many of them as there are individuals. Just as no two people are alike, no two life philosophies are the same. We each have our own basis for understanding ourselves, our lives and the world and our own aspirations for how we seek them to be.

This introduction touches on the essential knowledge that everyone should have to understand personal life philosophies, why they are essential life tools and how they can enrich your life.

Introduction to Life Philosophy Resources

These key concepts establish a common foundation of knowledge. This foundation will be helpful as you develop and live your personal life philosophy.

Start here if you are unfamiliar with life philosophy or want a refresher. Expand each of the sections if you would like more in depth information.

Life philosophy can be a tricky subject to embrace. There are common misconceptions that can bias your understanding and lead you to avoid the whole topic.

Understanding these misconceptions can stop them from preventing knowing and embracing your unique personal philosophy.

Just as we all have our own life philosophy; we all have our own way of learning.

If you prefer, choose the topics you want to cover in the order that works best for you.

Key Concepts about Personal Philosophies

What is a personal philosophy?

A personal life philosophy is your unique understanding of and perspective on the world and life including how you think life should be lived and the world should be.

Why does this matter? Your personal philosophy is a way to crystalize and make real your understanding of the world and life to help you make sense of it, know what is essential, sharpen your vision and bring clarity to a complex world.

The concept of a personal philosophy is something that is unique and something that is not generally well known or widespread, at least personal philosophies that are well developed and that can bring real value to one’s life. One can wonder why this is so, especially considering the importance of one’s personal philosophy .

In general, personal philosophies include things like your most essential truths and insights about, and highest aspirations, for life and the world. They bring value to your life both through the process of developing them and through helping make more definite thoughts and feelings that can be abstract and difficult to readily access and use in your life.

A personal philosophy encapsulates what is most essential, of great consequence, vital, enlightening and imperative. It is based upon what captures your imagination, demands your attention, comes naturally to you, incites you to action, inspires you, infuriates you, drives you or frees you to the greatest degree.

Personal philosophies are typically stated in a written form such as a set of principles or tenets and sometimes are written in an essay format, though they can take any from that you find useful.

Note: There are a series of related terms used for referring to personal philosophies including personal philosophy on life, living philosophy. Just about every conceivable combination and variation of the words philosophy, life and personal that are used to refer to personal philosophies. Here, the terms personal philosophy, personal life philosophy and life philosophy are used interchangeably.

What is life philosophy?

Life philosophy is the development and application of your personal philosophy to your life. Life philosophy includes two primary components: your personal philosophy and the ongoing act of making it real through developing and living it.

Why does this matter? Personal philosophies that cannot be or are not used in one’s life, may be interesting to contemplate and discuss over an adult beverage, but they cannot enrich your life unless you actually use them in it.

Beyond the potentially transformational experience of developing a personal philosophy, most of its value is realized through living it. A personal philosophy that is only vague concepts or even one is well formed but unused is of little value. Your personal philosophies can be of great value, but only if it is clear to you and made real in your life. Living your personal philosophy is how you realize the value of it for yourself and the world. There are a wealth of practical and enriching ways that your personal philosophy can be used in your life .

Why should I put effort into developing my personal philosophy?

Although each of us naturally has the basis for our personal philosophy, most of us do not understand our basis in ways that help us or in ways that we can make use of. Developing your personal philosophy clarifies it for you and helps you gain active knowledge of it.

Why does this matter? The experience of developing your personal philosophy includes connecting with what is essential to you in the world, which is a rewarding and enriching experience itself. Most importantly developing and actively knowing your personal philosophy enables you to use it in your life and realize the value it can bring .

When following a good approach for developing yours, you start to realize the value early in the process. Because of the nature of personal philosophies, you necessarily need to consider your perspective on the world and to understand your thoughts and feelings about it. Most of us do not take the time or invest the effort into actively working to understand our perspective on the world and ourselves. Developing your personal philosophy gives you an opportunity to indulge in doing so in a way that gets around much of the challenge of being too actively introspective, or touchy-feely. With the right approach, getting in touch with your perspective on the world and yourself is rewarding, freeing and simply enjoyable. You may even find it an experience that is affirmational or transformational.

Beyond the enriching personal experience, developing your personal philosophy will clarify your unique understanding of the world and life for you and make it something that you actively know. A personal philosophy that is just thoughts and feelings floating around in your mind has about as much value as a personal desire to become Yoda. It may be an interesting thought, but it probably won’t go much further than that. Your personal philosophy needs to be clear to you and something that you actively know. Clarity is critical so that when you need to use it in your life you don’t have to sort through it to figure out how it applies. Actively knowing your personal philosophy allows you to use it in your life. Not being able to clearly remember your personal philosophy makes it difficult to use in the moment. If you have to refer back to it in some written form it probably doesn’t have the clarity needed to be a real and present part of your life. Part of developing your personal philosophy is crafting it to be clear so that you can and actively know and use it in your life in large and small ways.

The importance (value) of your personal philosophy in life.

Your personal philosophy begins to bring value to your life through the experience of developing it and continues to do so for the rest of your life. It will help you make sense of the world, understand what is meaningful to you, clarify your insights, motivate and inspire you, and help you find and maintain your direction.

What does this mean to me? Your personal philosophy is a real-world life tool. Without it you are in many ways unequipped for life in an increasingly complex and difficult world for you as an individual.

The process of developing your personal philosophy necessarily requires being in touch with the world and yourself. The experience of doing so in a concerted, intentional way helps you crystalize what is meaningful in the world to you. This is one part of the reason why you should put the effort into developing your personal philosophy .

Beyond the experience of developing your personal philosophy, the real importance of a personal philosophy is that it equips you for life in a complex world in ways that can be difficult to do otherwise. Knowing and understanding your essential truths about, and aspirations for, life and the world as well as what you value and what is meaningful to you helps you with some of the most challenging aspects of life. Many of the traditional sources that people have relied upon for these answers are outdated and not relevant in today’s world. Without a personal philosophy you can be left searching for answers when challenges in life arise. Your personal philosophy helps you make sense of life and the challenges you encounter. It also helps you identify things you do that are out of sync with what you place value in and be a source of strength for changing them. It will help you fend off the constant barrage from others trying to make you do and think what they want you to. It provides a clear source of personal direction that can help with difficult or important decisions that you need to make in life. It can help you better understand your unique insights about life and the world and make the most of them. It can even inspire you to do something that is wildly aspirational that you would likely not do without the clarity, vision and meaning that your personal philosophy makes real for you. Knowing and living your personal philosophy will help you be more effective in the world and help you to contribute to realizing the things that you aspire for life and the world to be.What

Why aren't personal philosophies taught on a wider basis?

The primary purpose of education in most parts of the world is to produce individuals that are effective members of society and productive workers. Secondarily the concept of personal philosophies and the individual or “self” are relatively new (see the brief history of personal philosophies ).

Why should I care about this? A personal philosophy is something that is not needed to be a productive worker or effective member of society. It is needed if you are going to live an engaged, meaningful life that aligns with who you are and what you seek for your life and the world to be.

The value of education cannot be overstated. Knowledge is empowering. Self-knowledge, like that used in one’s personal philosophy, is an especially powerful form of knowledge. Unfortunately, self-knowledge is something that most of us must learn on our own without significant guidance or education about it.

An important part of developing a personal philosophy is quality self-knowledge. While some education systems do seek to develop the individual, but even they do not overtly educate individuals on developing self-knowledge. The concept of personal philosophies, the self and self-knowledge are relatively new. Most education systems are based upon century old theory and have not kept up with these concepts or integrated them into their method and curriculum. Imagine if our education systems sought to help people become self-aware, develop self-knowledge and become more enlightened about life and the world, instead of just seeking to produce productive contributing members of society.

A personal philosophy is something that can help you get beyond the narrow vision and relatively low expectations that many educational systems have for you. It can help you become more self-aware, more knowledgeable and more enlightened about life and the world.

What can be included in a personal philosophy.

What can be included in your personal philosophy?

Anything that you think or feel is essential to your understanding of and perspective on life and the world.

Why is the point? There are some things that can be helpful to include to make your unique personal philosophy more valuable in your life, but in the end, it is up to you.

A personal philosophy is the encapsulation of one’s most essential truths about, and aspirations for, the world, life and one’s self. That said, you can choose what to include in yours. To be able to apply your personal philosophy to your life, it is helpful if one includes things that you uniquely understand about life and the world, or your truths, and how you would like to see the world be, or your aspirations. The two together create a view of what you know about the world that is most significant to you, how you think life and the world should be and your desires for them. Your personal philosophy can include anything you find essential such as what you place value in and find especially meaningful. If there are other aspects of your understanding of yourself, life or the world that you think are substantive, you should include them.

One of the key attributes of your personal philosophy is that it draws upon your unique knowledge of the world and yourself. The types of knowledge that can be used in your life philosophy are those encompassed by knowledge in a broad sense. Often the concept of knowledge is constrained to specific types of knowledge such as that which is taught through formal education or that which can be attained through science and reason. While there are no hard rules about personal philosophies, constraining yourself to narrow definitions of knowledge is limiting. Including what you know beyond your capacity for reason and the realm of scientific proof, such that which you know through emotion and intuition, helps to create a personal philosophy that captures the nature of being human. Einstein’s essay in Living Philosophies is a great example of how this is true. If you are going to apply your personal philosophy to your life, it should be substantive and not oversimplify the nature of life to the point of being of little value in it. It also should not be limited to someone else’s definition of what a life philosophy should entail, or what it should be based upon. Too, it should not be limited to systems thought and belief that have been formalized and categorized. In many ways, personal philosophy allows you to move beyond these prescribed ways of understanding and create a perspective that is rich in meaning to you.

Including those things that are the most significant to you, especially what sets you apart from others, is one approach. For instance, we all place high value on our families, health and livelihood. These are universal and stating them as a personal philosophy, while perfectly valid, may not be very insightful about your personal truths or aspirations for life and the world. In a similar way, a personal philosophy is not necessarily about defining universal truths or answering life’s big questions such as the purpose or meaning of life. These can be included if your knowledge of them is especially significant to you. Your personal philosophy is about understanding and expressing the things that stand out to you above all others.

What do I need to know to develop my personal philosophy?

Having a reasonably broad view of life and the world is helpful, as is being able to connect with and understanding your perspective on it. An understanding of personal philosophies is also helpful.

Why does this matter to me? While having a broad view of life and the world is important, you can never know, feel or experience everything. When you decide to develop your personal philosophy, it is important to use your perspective on the world to the greatest extent possible. Too, your personal philosophy will likely evolve as you and the world change.

Your personal philosophy necessarily draws upon your understanding of life and the world. If you have limited experience with life and the world, it can be helpful to work to expand your perspective. Even if you have an expansive perspective on the world, being in touch with that perspective is important. You may find it helpful to spend some time reconnecting with your perspective on the world as you craft your personal philosophy. Too, you continue to learn and change throughout your life and the world continues to change at a rapid pace. An effective approach for crafting your personal philosophy should help you connect with what is essential in the world to and to understand why throughout your life.

Having a good connection with yourself is also helpful. This connection allows you to understand your perspective on the world including your thoughts and feelings about it. You may find it necessary to work to create this connection, or to reconnect with yourself if you have lost touch. One of the challenges with creating and maintaining it is the constant barrage we are under from others wanting us to think and do what they want us to. A good connection with yourself helps cut through this barrage. An effective approach for developing your personal philosophy will also help.

Like with most things that you undertake, a good understanding of what you are taking on and what is involved with accomplishing it is advisable. Having an understanding of personal philosophies and what is involved with developing one can help you successfully craft yours so that it is valuable in your life.

Where did the concept of personal philosophies come from?

While the roots of personal philosophies, individual’s interpretations on what is important in the world, can be seen even in the earliest artwork and myths, personal philosophies per se arrived on the scene much more recently. They appear to have come into general use within the last century or so.

Like most forms of modern thinking, the roots of personal philosophies appear to have evolved along with human thought. Prehistoric evidence for personal views on the world and what is most significant in it are likely captured in the earliest myths and paintings. These early forms of expression undoubtedly included some personal interpretation of the world for practical use. Yet, considering them to be statements of personal philosophy is a stretch at best. The first formal thinking related to personal philosophies dates back to the time of the early thinkers on human condition and the nature of the world that we live in. Religious beliefs and religions evolved from individuals’ personal understanding of the world. Confucius’s writings can be considered a good example of how this happened. Undoubtedly, many of those who have focused their life on the pursuit of philosophy necessarily include what would constitute their own philosophy on life in their work including the first recognized philosophers in the 600-500 BC period. One perspective on philosophy itself is that it can be considered the pursuit of making sense of life and the world. Beyond those who pursued philosophy per se, many great thinkers and people who have put their imprint upon the course of history have recorded their philosophical perspective behind their thinking and actions. Abraham Lincoln is a familiar, notable example, and there are many more. Yet none of these can be considered a personal philosophy per se.

Personal philosophies in the context used here, are prevalent in modern times. In 1931 a volume of Living Philosophies was published by Simon & Schuster and includes short essays about their philosophy on life from notable figures including Albert Einstein. These insightful essays capture their perspective on the world including their beliefs and ideals. Two subsequent volumes were published with essays from other notables, I Believe in 1942 and Living Philosophies in 1990. All of which are worth reading. These essays seem to come the closest to the concept of personal philosophy as used here. Interestingly the concept of individual identity and the self appears to have come into prominence on a similar timeline, within the last century.

The rapid escalation of the challenges facing humanity in general, the shift away from traditional sources and authorities for answers to life’s important questions, the increasingly difficult global environmental and political situation and the escalating assault on our individuality through the ever-present screens we view all seem to be reasons why personal philosophies are becoming more prominent. In many ways, personal philosophies have become a vital form of empowerment for the individual actualizing their individuality.

Using your personal philosophy in your life.

There are virtually limitless ways that you can use your personal philosophy in your life. How you do so will vary based upon where you are in life and what is happening in yours.

Your personal philosophy can be made part of your life in ways large and small. In looking at the importance (value) of your personal philosophy in life , we touched upon many of the ways your personal philosophy brings value to your life including as a source of meaning, a source of guidance for important decisions, a source of strength, a source of vision and insight, even a source of inspiration.

Through actively knowing your personal philosophy you can use it in your daily life as you make decisions and to help guide your actions to be in line with how you seek to be. It can be easy to take the path of least resistance or to succumb, even momentarily, to the toxic messaging constantly targeting you. Actively knowing your personal philosophy helps you be more intentional and fend off this and other forces working against you.

Making your personal philosophy a part of your daily life helps keep what you find essential, place value in, and draw meaning from present in your life. It also provides a reassuring sense of understanding and direction through your essential truths and aspirations.

Your life philosophy can help you better understand yourself and your perspective on just about everything and under any circumstances. Having a well-developed life philosophy also allows you to share and discuss it with others, if you choose to. It can help them understand you and your actions. Sharing your life philosophy or some part of it can be helpful in many situations such as when you have to explain choices that you make which are different from others or that don’t align with their expectations of you.

Your life philosophy can help you achieve a greater sense of meaning and fulfillment. Some think that it is only possible to achieve higher levels of meaning and happiness through the understanding and awareness that knowing and living a personal philosophy can provide.

Common Misconceptions About Personal Philosophies

I don’t have or need a personal philosophy.

Short Answer : Everyone has some form of a personal philosophy. Most just have not developed it into something they actively know or use in their lives.

Each individuals’ personal philosophy, including yours, is their unique understanding of the world that is developed into a form that can be actively known and used in their life. When you consider the scope of the human experience, including what we can know and feel and how we can know and feel it, and the diversity of individuals, we all truly have our unique understanding of the world.

There is strength in diversity. You as an empowered, self-actualized and enlightened individual build upon what it means to be human and for us to collectively be humanity. Understanding your unique knowledge and wisdom about life and the world will help you become an empowered, self-actualized and enlightened individual.

The kinds of changes that are confronting individuals and humanity require something more than for all of us to live and think the same way, or even subscribe to a defined set of philosophic and religious systems. The scales are tipped toward you becoming more like everyone else. The intentional attempt to control your thoughts and actions through messaging and artificial intelligence is invading all aspects of your life. It is an attempt to make you think and behave in ways that others seek for you to. Actively knowing your understanding of the world and your aspirations for it is not only essential for surviving in an increasingly complex and difficult world, it is key to advancing us as humanity and overcoming the crises that confront us now and in the future.

Personal philosophies are only for big thinkers.

Short Answer : Each of us has a unique understanding of the world and the ability to define our own personal philosophy. Be wary of anyone or any entity that tries to make you think otherwise. Question their motives.

Society puts undue importance on the personal philosophies of famous people and preserves their perspective through time disproportionally. Historically, this may have largely been a product of our ability to record and publish the thoughts of any one person. It may be no coincidence that as our ability to record our individual thinking and share it broadly the importance of the big thinkers’ thoughts is diminishing.

For some reason, we have a tendency to treat some and their thoughts effectively as idols. We often turn to those that we view as authorities for answers to life’s important questions when the reality is that they are just people and their answers are merely that, theirs. They are not better than the answers that we each have, yet we often place more value in them than our own.

In the end, you determine your personal philosophy. If you decide to adopt a philosophy or components of a philosophy that is defined by someone else, that is your choice. The important thing is that you have explored the world enough to know what makes sense to you and works for you. Too, nothing in life is cast in stone. The world changes and we all grow and learn. As you do, your personal philosophy should as well.

But it is not only the famous who leave their marks. Every single one of us has, I believe, a significant part to play in the scheme of things. Some contributors that go unrecognized may nevertheless be of the utmost importance.

– Jane Goodall in her personal philosophy within Living Philosophies 1990.

A personal philosophy is a one sentence maxim.

Short Answer : You’re not a car and your personal philosophy shouldn’t be a bumper sticker.

Everyone likes a concise statement that captures the essence of a common experience in life. It’s also good to have simple rules in life to remind us of basic things we know. They have practical value in specific situations. That said, simple rules of life, even a collection of really good ones do not amount to a personal philosophy.

An effective personal philosophy encompasses the scope of your unique perspective on life and the world. To be effective it needs to be able to help you make sense of a complex and dynamic world. It needs to be able to help you derive meaning from your life, understand what you value and what you seek for life and the world to be. If you truly can express your personal philosophy in one sentence, beyond likely being an amazing sentence, it would no longer be a maxim that is applicable only in specific situations. It would be a broad, robust expression of your unique perspective on the world and life including your truths about them and how you think they should be.

Like philosophy in general, personal philosophies are esoteric and don’t have practical value.

Short Answer : This misconception is completely understandable. Philosophy is generally something that can be challenging to convert to real world value. Personal philosophies are different as they are practical real-life tools.

Unfortunately, there is not a good substitute for the word “philosophy” in the English language that fully captures its meaning in the sense of being “a set of basic concepts and beliefs that are of value as guidance in practical ways.” When we hear or read the world philosophy, we most often think of one of the other meanings primarily “systems of thought” as in skepticism, pragmatism or existentialism and the famous men (typically) that professed their virtues and argued for their specific flavor as the one best perspective on the world and life. In many ways, personal philosophies are the antithesis of these systems of thought. Personal philosophies are individual perspectives meant to have meaning and value for one individual rather than general principles that apply to all. Applied practical value in life is one of the defining characteristics of personal life philosophies. If a personal philosophy is not of practical value in life, it is not much of a personal philosophy at all.

I already know my personal philosophy. I don’t need to develop it.

Short Answer : If you have and know your personal philosophy, you should be able to state it now in a clear and concise way that you can apply in your life. If not, crafting it into a clear form to you and that you actively know will help you realize real-world value from it.

I’m just one normal person, my personal philosophy is of no value to the world.

Short Answer : Humanity is a collective of unique individuals. Who we are, what we know, what we will become and what defines us our humanity is determined by the sum total of each of us. Your individuality, including your unique understanding of and perspective on life and the world, has real implications for humanity collectively.

It can be easy to sell oneself short considering the hype and focus given to people with power, money and fame. This is exactly what you are doing if you truly think that your personal philosophy is not of consequence to the world.

At the very least, understanding your unique perspective on the world and life, will hedge off the homogeneity we are being driven toward by the systems and institutions that we have created. Systems and institutions controlled by and for the benefit of those with power, money and fame. Systems, institutions and people that want you to think and act in ways that benefit them. Dismissing the value of your personal philosophy and not developing yours is playing their game. Their game of control lets them have power over you and makes you even more susceptible to thinking and acting like they want you to as long as you are passive to it.

Your personal philosophy will lead you to a better understanding of the world. That understanding will prompt you to take some action to make it better, at least within your immediate world. Developing and knowing your personal philosophy may even lead you to do something that you never thought you would. That action may have implications beyond what you expect, and makes a substantial difference in the lives of others and the course of the world.

Be better equipped to develop and live your personal philosophy.

On Terms of Your Own:

The Pursuit of Being and Fulfillment in a Challenging World.

Navigate 101 by Topic

Key Concepts :

The importance (value) of a personal philosophy.
Why aren’t personal philosophies taught on a wider basis?
What can be included in a personal philosophy?
Using my personal philosophy in my life .

Common Misconceptions :

Like philosophy in general, personal philosophies are esoteric and don’t have any practical value.
I already know my personal philosophy. I don’t need to formalize it.

We’re in Yellow Springs, Ohio

1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology

Philosophy, One Thousand Words at a Time

The Meaning of Life: What’s the Point?

Author: Matthew Pianalto Categories: Ethics , Phenomenology and Existentialism , Philosophy of Religion Word Count: 1000

Editors’ note: this essay and its companion essay, Meaning in Life: What Makes Our Lives Meaningful? both explore the concept of meaning in relation to human life. This essay focuses on the meaning of life as a whole, whereas the other addresses meaning in individual human lives.

At the height of his literary fame, the novelist Leo Tolstoy was gripped by suicidal despair. [1] He felt that life is meaningless because, in the long run, we’ll all be dead and forgotten. Tolstoy later rejected this pessimism in exchange for religious faith in life’s eternal, divine significance.

Tolstoy’s outlook—both before and after his conversion—raises many questions:

Does life’s having meaning depend on a supernatural reality?
Is death a threat to life’s meaning?
Is life the sort of thing that can have a “meaning”? In what sense?

Here we will consider some approaches to questions about the meaning of life. [2]

1. Questioning the Question

Many philosophers begin thinking about the meaning of life by asking what the question itself means. [3] Life could refer to all lifeforms or to human life specifically. This essay focuses on human life, but it is worth considering how other things might have or lack meaning, too. [4] This can help illuminate the different meanings of meaning .

Sometimes, we use “meaning” to refer to the origin or cause of something’s existence. If I come home to a trashed house, I might wonder, “What is the meaning of this?” Similarly, we might wonder where life comes from or how it began; our origins may tell us something about other meanings, like our value or purpose.

We also use “meaning” to refer to something’s significance or value . Something can be valuable in various ways, such as by being useful, pleasing, or informative. We might call something meaningless if it is trivial or unimportant.

“Meaning” can also refer to something’s point or purpose . [5] Life could have some overarching purpose as part of a divine plan, or it might have no such purpose. Perhaps we can give our lives purpose that they did not previously possess.

Notice that even divine purposes may not always satisfy our desire for meaning: suppose our creator made us to serve as livestock for hyper-intelligent aliens who will soon arrive and begin to farm us. [6] We might protest that this is not the most meaningful use of our human potential! We may not want our life-story to end as a people-burger.

Indeed, a thing’s meaning can also be its story . The meaning of life might be the true story of life’s origins and significance. [7] In this sense, life cannot be meaningless, but its meaning might be pleasing or disappointing to us. When people like Tolstoy regard life as meaningless, they seem to be thinking that the truth about life is bad news. [8]

2. Supernaturalism

Supernaturalists hold that life has divine significance. [9] For example, from the perspective of the Abrahamic religions, life is valuable because everything in God’s creation is good . Our purpose is to love and glorify God. We are all part of something very important and enduring : God’s plan.

Much of the contemporary discussion about the meaning of life is provoked by skepticism about traditional religious answers. [10] The phrase “the meaning of life” came into common usage only in the last two centuries, as advances in science, especially evolutionary theory, led many to doubt that life is the product of intelligent, supernatural design. [11] The meaning of life might be an especially perplexing issue for those who reject religious answers.

3. Nihilism

Nihilists think that life, on balance, lacks positive meaning. [12] Nihilism often arises as a pessimistic reaction to religious skepticism: life without a divine origin or purpose has no enduring significance.

Although others might counter that life can have enduring significance that doesn’t depend on a supernatural origin, such as our cultural legacy, nihilists are skeptical. From a cosmic perspective, we are tiny specks in a vast universe–and often miserable to boot! Even our most important cultural icons and achievements will likely vanish with the eventual extinction of the species and the collapse of the solar system.

4. Naturalism

Naturalists suggest that the meaning of life is to be found within our earthly lives. Even if life possesses no supernatural meaning, life itself may have inherent significance. [13] Things are not as bad as nihilists claim.

Some naturalists argue that life—at least human life—has objectively valuable features, such as our intellectual, moral, and creative abilities. [14] The meaning of life may be to develop these capacities and put them to good use. [15]

Other naturalists are subjectivists about life’s meaning. [16] Existentialists , for example, argue that life has no meaning until we give it meaning by choosing to live for something that we find important. [17]

Critics (including nihilists and supernaturalists) argue that the naturalists are fooling themselves. What naturalists propose as sources of meaning in life are at best a distraction from life’s lack of ultimate or cosmic significance (if naturalism is true). What is the point of personal development and good works if we’ll all be dead sooner or later?

Naturalists may respond that the point is in how these activities affect our lives and relationships now rather than in some distant, inhuman future. [18] Feeling sad or distressed over our lack of cosmic importance might be a kind of vanity we should overcome. [19] Some also question whether living forever would necessarily add meaning to life; living forever might be boring! [20] Having limited time may be part of what makes some of our activities and experiences so precious. [21]

5. Conclusion

In Douglas Adams’ novel The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy , the supercomputer Deep Thought is prompted to discover “the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.” After 7 ½ million years of computation, Deep Thought determines that the answer is…

forty-two .

Reflecting on this bizarre result, Deep Thought muses, “I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you’ve never actually known what the question is.” [22]

Adams may be wise to offer some comic relief. [23] Furthermore, given the various meanings of “meaning,” perhaps there is no single question to ask and thus no single correct answer.

Tolstoy’s crisis is a reminder that feelings of meaninglessness can be distressing and dangerous. [24] However, continuing to search for meaning in times of doubt may be one of the most meaningful things we can do. [25]

[1] Tolstoy (2005 [1882]). For discussion of Tolstoy’s rediscovery of meaning that extends his ideas beyond the specific religious outlook he adopted, see Preston-Roedder (2022).

[2] For more detailed overviews of the meaning of life, see Metz (2021) and the entries on the meaning of life by Joshua Seachris and Wendell O’Brien in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy .

[3] Ayer (2008) suspects the question is incoherent. For a response, see Nielsen (2008). For helpful discussion of the meanings of meaning, see Thomas (2019).

[4] For discussion of meaning beyond humans (and agents), see Stevenson (2022).

[5] Notice that purpose appears to be one type of value, as discussed in the preceding paragraph.

[6] Nozick (1981) develops this point about purpose; Nozick (2008) offers the key points, too. In a different spirit, the ancient Daoist philosophy of Zhuangzi (2013) provides some perspective on the advantages of being “useless” (having no purpose) and the dangers of being “useful.”

[7] On this proposal of the meaning of life as narrative, see Seachris (2009). A similar approach that emphasizes the notion of interpretation rather than story or narrative is proposed in Prinzing (2021).

[8] A starter list of life’s features that might lead one to tell such a story about life: war, poverty, physical and mental illness, natural disasters, addiction, labor exploitation and other injustices, and pollution. For more, see Benatar (2017).

[9] Some, like Craig (2013), argue vigorously that life can have meaning only if supernaturalism is true. For further discussion and examples, see discussions of supernaturalism in Seachris, “The Meaning of Life: Contemporary Analytic Perspectives” and Metz (2021).

[10] See Landau (1997) and Setiya (2022), Ch. 6, for discussion of the origin of the phrase.

[11] Nietzsche’s discussion of the “death of God” in The Gay Science (2001 [1882]) reflects these sorts of concerns.

[12] For recent defenses of this view, see Benatar (2017) and Weinberg (2021).

[13] See I. Singer (2009) for a wide-ranging naturalist approach. Wolf’s (2010, 2014) approach to meaning in life is one of the most widely accepted views amongst contemporary philosophers.

[14] For a helpful discussion of the idea that some things might be objectively valuable, see Ethical Realism by Thomas Metcalf.

[15] Metz (2013) and P. Singer (1993) defend this sort of view of meaning in life. Transhumanists would argue that the best uses of our abilities will be those that help us overcome the problems, like disease and mortality, that beset humans and may transform us in substantial ways: perhaps we can achieve a natural form of immortality through technology! On transhumanism, see Messerly (2022).

[16] Representative subjectivists include Taylor (2000) and Calhoun (2015). Susan Wolf’s works (2010 and 2014) develop a “hybrid” account of meaning that combines objective and subjective elements.

[17] For classic expressions of this existentialist view, see Sartre (2021 [1943]) and Beauvoir (2018 [1947]). For a brief overview of existentialist philosophy, see Existentialism by Addison Ellis. For a more detailed, contemporary overview, see Gosetti-Ferencei (2020).

[18] On this point, see Nagel (1971), Nagel (1989), and “The Meanings of Lives” in Wolf (2014). For further discussion see Kahane (2014).

[19] Marquard (1991); see Hosseini (2015) for additional discussion. Albert Camus makes a similar point, invoking the notion of “moderation,” at the end of The Rebel (1992 [1951]).

[20] Williams (1973) gives the classic expression of this idea. For a brief overview of Williams’ argument, see Is Immortality Desirable? , by Felipe Pereira.

[21] Of course, this outlook does mean that death can sometimes rob people of potential meaning, since death can be untimely. But death would not erase the meaningfulness of whatever one had already experienced or achieved. For arguments concerning whether death harms the individual who dies, see Is Death Bad? Epicurus and Lucretius on the Fear of Death by Frederik Kaufman.

[22] Adams (2017), Chapters 27-28. Asking a computer to give us the answer might also be a problem.

[23] For additional comic relief, see the film Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life (1983). Such playfulness may seem irreverent of these “deep” philosophical questions, but Schlick (2017 [1927]) argued that the meaning of life is to be found in play!

[24] For discussion of crises of meaning and an introduction to psychological research on meaning in life, see Smith (2017).

[25] William Winsdale relates that the existential psychiatrist Viktor Frankl was once asked to “express in one sentence the meaning of his own life” (in Frankl (2006), 164-5). After writing his answer, he asked his students to guess what he wrote. A student said, “The meaning of your life is to help others find the meaning of theirs.” Frankl responded, “That is it exactly. Those are the very words I had written.”

Adams, Douglas (2017). The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy . Del Rey. Originally published in 1979.

Ayer, A.J. (2008). “The Claims of Philosophy.” In: E.D. Klemke and Seven M. Cahn, eds. The Meaning of Life, Third Edition . Oxford University Press: 199-202.

Beauvoir, Simone de (2018). The Ethics of Ambiguity . Open Road Media. Originally published in French in 1947.

Benatar, David (2017). The Human Predicament . Oxford University Press.

Calhoun, Cheshire (2015). “Geographies of Meaningful Living,” Journal of Applied Philosophy 32(1): 15-34.

Camus, Albert (1992). The Rebel . Vintage. Originally published in French in 1951.

Craig, William Lane (2013). “The Absurdity of Life Without God.” In: Jason Seachris, ed. Exploring the Meaning of Life . Wiley-Blackwell: 153-172.

Frankl, Viktor E. (2006). Man’s Search for Meaning . Beacon Press.

Gosetti-Ferencei, Jennifer Anna (2020). On Being and Becoming: An Existentialist Approach to Life . Oxford University Press.

Hosseini, Reza (2015). Wittgenstein and Meaning in Life . Palgrave Macmillan.

Kahane, Guy (2014). “Our Cosmic Insignificance.” Noûs 48(4): 745–772.

Landau, Iddo (2017). Finding Meaning in an Imperfect World . Oxford University Press.

— (1997). “Why Has the Question of the Meaning of Life Arisen in the Last Two and a Half Centuries?” Philosophy Today 41(2): 263-269.

Marquard, Odo (1991). “On the Dietetics of the Expectation of Meaning.” In: In Defense of the Accidental . Translated by Robert M. Wallace. Oxford University Press: 29-49.

Messerly, John (2022). Short Essays on Life, Death, Meaning, and the Far Future .

Metz, Thaddeus (2013). Meaning in Life . Oxford University Press .

— (2021). “The Meaning of Life.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.).

Nagel, Thomas (1971). “The Absurd,” Journal of Philosophy 68(20): 716-727.

— (1989). The View From Nowhere . Oxford University Press.

Nielsen, Kai (2008). “Linguistic Philosophy and ‘The Meaning of Life.’” In: E.D. Klemke and Seven M. Cahn, eds. The Meaning of Life, Third Edition . Oxford University Press: 203-219.

Nietzsche, Friedrich (2001). The Gay Science . Translated by Josephine Nauckhoff. Cambridge University Press. Originally published in German in 1882.

Nozick, Robert (1981). Philosophical Explanations . Harvard University Press.

— (2018), “Philosophy and the Meaning of Life,” in: E.D. Klemke and Seven M. Cahn, eds. The Meaning of Life, Fourth Edition . Oxford University Press: 197-204.

O’Brien, Wendell. “The Meaning of Life: Early Continental and Analytic Perspectives.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Last Accessed 12/19/2022.

Preston-Roedder, Ryan (2022). “Living with absurdity: A Nobleman’s guide,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research (Early View) .

Prinzing, Michael M. (2021). “The Meaning of ‘Life’s Meaning,’” Philosopher’s Imprint 21(3).

Sartre, Jean-Paul (2021). Being and Nothingness . Washington Square Press. Originally published in French in 1943.

Schlick, Moritz (2017). “On the Meaning of Life,” in: In: E.D. Klemke and Seven M. Cahn, eds. The Meaning of Life, Third Edition . Oxford University Press: 56-65. Originally published in 1927.

Seachris, Joshua. “The Meaning of Life: Contemporary Analytic Perspectives.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Last Accessed 12/19/2022.

— (2009). “The Meaning of Life as Narrative.” Philo 12(1): 5-23.

Setiya, Kieran (2022). Life is Hard: How Philosophy Can Help Us Find Our Way . Riverhead Books.

Singer, Irving (2009). Meaning in Life, Vol. 1: The Creation of Value . MIT Press.

Singer, Peter (1993). How Are We to Live? Ethics in an Age of Self-Interest . Prometheus.

Smith, Emily E. (2017). The Power of Meaning . Crown.

Stevenson, Chad Mason (2022). “Anything Can Be Meaningful.” Philosophical Papers (forthcoming).

Taylor, Richard (2000). Good and Evil . Prometheus. Originally published in 1970.

Thomas, Joshua Lewis (2019). “Meaningfulness as Sensefulness,” Philosophia 47: 1555-1577.

Tolstoy, Leo (2005). A Confession . Translated by Aylmer Maude. Dover. Originally published in Russian in 1882.

Weinberg, Rivka (2021). “Ultimate Meaning: We Don’t Have It, We Can’t Get It, and We Should Be Very, Very Sad,” Journal of Controversial Ideas 1(1), 4.

Williams, Bernard (1973). “The Makropulos case: reflections on the tedium of immortality.” In: Problems of the Self: Philosophical Papers, 1956-1972 . Cambridge University Press: 82-100.

Wolf, Susan (2010). Meaning in Life and Why It Matters . Princeton University Press. ( Wolf’s lecture is also available at the Tanner Lecture Series website ).

— (2014). The Variety of Values . Oxford University Press.

Zhuangzi (2013). The Complete Works of Zhuangzi . Translated by Burton Watson. Columbia University Press.

Related Essays

Meaning in Life: What Makes Our Lives Meaningful? by Matthew Pianalto

Existentialism by Addison Ellis

Camus on the Absurd: The Myth of Sisyphus by Erik Van Aken

Nietzsche and the Death of God by Justin Remhof

Is Death Bad? Epicurus and Lucretius on the Fear of Death by Frederik Kaufman

Ancient Cynicism: Rejecting Civilization and Returning to Nature by G. M. Trujillo, Jr.

The Badness of Death by Duncan Purves

Is Immortality Desirable? by Felipe Pereira

Hope by Michael Milona & Katie Stockdale

Ethical Realism by Thomas Metcalf

PDF Download

Download this essay in PDF .

About the Author

Matthew Pianalto is a Professor of Philosophy at Eastern Kentucky University. He is the author of On Patience (2016) and several articles and book chapters on ethics. philosophy.eku.edu/pianalto

Follow 1000-Word Philosophy on Facebook and Twitter and subscribe to receive email notifications of new essays at 1000WordPhilosophy.com .

Share this:, 5 thoughts on “ the meaning of life: what’s the point ”.

Pingback: Meaning in Life: What Makes Our Lives Meaningful? – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
Pingback: Online Philosophy Resources Weekly Update | Daily Nous
Pingback: Aristotle on Friendship: What Does It Take to Be a Good Friend? – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
Pingback: Ancient Cynicism: Rejecting Civilization and Returning to Nature – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
Pingback: Qual o sentido da vida? (S03E06) – Esclarecimento

Comments are closed.

Discover more from 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Your complimentary articles

You’ve read one of your four complimentary articles for this month.

You can read four articles free per month. To have complete access to the thousands of philosophy articles on this site, please

Question of the Month

What is life, the following answers to this fundamental question each win a random book..

Life is the aspect of existence that processes, acts, reacts, evaluates, and evolves through growth (reproduction and metabolism). The crucial difference between life and non-life (or non-living things) is that life uses energy for physical and conscious development. Life is anything that grows and eventually dies, i.e., ceases to proliferate and be cognizant. Can we say that viruses, for example, are cognizant? Yes, insofar as they react to stimuli; but they are alive essentially because they reproduce and grow. Computers are non-living because even though they can cognize, they do not develop biologically (grow), and cannot produce offspring. It is not cognition that determines life, then: it is rather proliferation and maturation towards a state of death; and death occurs only to living substances.

Or is the question, ‘What is the meaning (purpose) of life?’ That’s a real tough one. But I think that the meaning of life is the ideals we impose upon it, what we demand of it. I’ve come to reaffirm my Boy Scout motto, give or take a few words, that the meaning of life is to: Do good, Be Good, but also to Receive Good. The foggy term in this advice, of course, is ‘good’; but I leave that to the intuitive powers that we all share.

There are, of course, many intuitively clear examples of Doing Good: by retrieving a crying baby from a dumpster; by trying to rescue someone who’s drowning. Most of us would avoid murdering; and most of us would refrain from other acts we find intuitively wrong. So our natural intuitions determine the meaning of life for us; and it seems for other species as well, for those intuitions resonate through much of life and give it its purpose.

Tom Baranski, Somerset, New Jersey

The ceramic artist Edmund de Waal places an object in front of him and begins to tell a story. Even if the patina, chips and signs of repair of the inanimate object hint at its history, the story is told by a living observer. A living thing is an object that contains its story within itself. Life’s story is held in the genome, based in DNA. Maybe other ways for memorising the story may be discovered, but in environments subject to common chemical processes, common methods are likely to emerge.

Although we have only the example of the Earth, it shows that life will evolve to fill every usable niche, and to secure and further diversify those niches. This should not be thought of as purposeful. Life embodies a ‘plan’, but one that does not specify ends, only methods acquired iteratively. Inanimate processes can be cyclic but not iterative: they do not learn from past mistakes.

Life exists at many levels. Life is also a process through which energy and materials are transformed; but so is non-life. The difference is that the process of life is intimately linked to story it contains, whereas non-life is indifferent to the story we impose upon it. Yet life is only a story, so it can act only through matter. Therefore life is by nature a toolmaker. Its tools are potentially everything that exists, and its workshop is potentially the whole universe. So why do humans risk undermining the life of which they are part? Because they try to impose upon it a story of their own making. Yet humans, the ‘tool-making animals’, are themselves tools of life, in an unplanned experiment.

Nicholas Taylor, Little Sandhurst, Berkshire

First the technical definition. Life is self-organising chemistry which reproduces itself and passes on its evolved characteristics, encoded in DNA. In thermodynamics terms, it has the ability to reduce local entropy or disorganisation, thus locally contravening the third law of thermodynamics.

But what is life really about , if anything? The two possibilities are, life is either a meaningless accident arising from the laws of physics operating in a meaningless universe, or it is a step in a planned ‘experiment’. I say ‘step’, because this cannot be the end. The current state of life is as yet too unstable and undeveloped for it to be the end. And I say ‘experiment’ because the evolutionary nature of life suggests that its future is not known. If therefore the universe itself has a purpose, it seems most likely to be to explore what the outcome of the evolutionary experiment would be.

But what will be the outcome? If, as many physicists now believe, the universe is only information, then harnessing all the resources of the universe in one giant evolutionary process could plausibly provide a useful outcome for a species clever enough to create the universe in the first place. On this interpretation, life will ultimately organise all the physical resources of the universe into a single self-conscious intelligence, which in turn will then be able to interact with its creator(s).

Dr Harry Fuchs, Flecknoe, Warwickshire

Life is the embodiment of selfishness! Life is selfish because it is for itself in two ways: it is for its own survival, and it is for its own reproduction. This desire is embodied in an adaptive autocatalytic chemical system, forming life’s embodied mind.

Anything that is not itself is the other; and the collection of others constitute its environment. The organism must destructively use the other to satisfy its reproductive desire, but on achieving this, it produces an additional other – but now one that also embodies its own selfish aim and the means to satisfy this aim. Therefore, even by an organism satisfying its desire, it makes the continuing satisfaction of its desires ever more difficult to achieve. A partial solution to this dilemma is for genetically-related entities to form a cooperating society.

The underlying mechanism of evolution is therefore the iteration of the embodied desire within an ever more complex competitive and social environment. Over vast numbers of iterations, this process forces some life-forms along a pathway that solves the desire for survival and reproduction by developing ever more complex and adaptable minds. This is achieved by supplementing their underlying cellular embodied chemistry with a specialist organ (although still based on chemistry) that we call its brain, able to rapidly process electrical signals. Advanced minds can collect and process vast inputs of data by ‘projecting’ the derived output back onto its environmental source, that is by acting. However advanced it might be, an organism is still driven by the same basic needs for survival and reproduction. The creative process, however, leads the organism towards an increasingly aesthetic experience of the world. This is why for us the world we experience is both rich and beautiful.

Dr Steve Brewer, St Ives, Cornwall

In our scientific age, we look to the biologists to define ‘life’ for us. After all, it is their subject matter. I believe they have yet to reach consensus, but a biological definition would be something like, ‘Life is an arrangement of molecules with qualities of self-sustenance and self-replication’. This kind of definition might serve the purposes of biologists, but for me, it has five deficiencies. First, any definition of life by biologists would have little utility outside biology because of its necessary inclusiveness. We humans would find ourselves in a class of beings that included the amoeba. ‘Life’ would be the limited common properties of all organisms, including the lowest. Second, the scientific definition of life is necessarily an external one. I think that knowing what life is, as opposed to defining it, requires knowing it from within. Non-sentient organisms live, but they do not know life. Third, in the scientific definition, there is no place for life having value. However, many would say that life has value in its own right – that it is not simply that we humans value life and so give it value, but that it has value intrinsically. Fourth, there is the question of life as a whole having a purpose or goal. This notion is not scientific, but one wonders if the tools of science are fit to detect any evolutionary purpose, if there is one. Fifth, for the scientists, life is a set of biological conditions and processes. However, everywhere and always, people have conceived of a life after biological death, a life of spirit not necessarily dependent on the physical for existence.

The scientific definition of life is valid in its context, but otherwise I find it impoverished. I believe there is a hierarchy of living beings from the non-sentient, to the sentient, to humans, and perhaps up to God. When I ask, ‘What is life? I want to know what life is at its highest form. I believe life at its best is spirit: it is active, sentient, feeling, thinking, purposive, valuing, social, other-respecting, relating, and caring.

John Talley, Rutherfordton, NC

I listen enthralled to scientific debate on what, how, when and where life was created. However, questions remain which may never be resolved. In this vacuum, philosophers and religious thinkers have attempted to give meaning to life by suggesting goals: Plato suggested the acquisition of knowledge, Aristotle to practice virtue, and the Stoics, mental fortitude and self-control. Today’s philosophers echo the existentialist view that life is full of absurdity, although they also tell us that we must put meaning into life by making our own values in an indifferent world. But if life is just a journey from womb to tomb, will such ‘meaning’ be sufficient to allow the traveller at journey’s end to feel that it was worthwhile?

Perhaps the hypothesis upon which Ivan Tyrrell and Joe Griffin have based their therapy could help (see Human Givens , 2003). They describe that we are born with evolved needs that seek satisfaction from our environment. These are physical and emotional needs, which, when enough of them are met, ensure the health of the individual, maximising his or her ability to achieve meaning in life. Griffin and Tyrrell have proven empirically that when sufficient needs are met an individual will enjoy mental and physical health, unless there is damage or toxicity in the environment. Some of these needs were identified by Maslow in his ‘Hierarchy of Needs’ in his 1943 paper ‘A Theory of Human Motivation’, Psychological Review , 50 (4), but Griffin and Tyrrell focus more clearly on emotional needs such as:

• To achieve, and to feel competent

• To fulfil our sense of autonomy and control

• To be emotionally connected to other people and part of a larger community

• To have a sense of status within social groupings

• For privacy and rest, to reflect and consolidate learning

• And yes – to have meaning in one’s life

Meaning becomes difficult, if not impossible, to achieve if these needs are insufficiently satisfied. Unfortunately, modern society seeks meaning to life through materialism, to the detriment of our biological needs, leading to dissatisfaction and a consequent inability to find meaning. The result is an exponential increase in mental ill-health. Sadly, then, many of us will not experience the satisfaction of a meaningful life journey.

Caryl A. Fuchs, Flecknoe, Warwickshire

Life is the eternal and unbroken flow of infinite rippling simultaneous events that by a fortuitous chain has led to this universe of elements we are all suspended in, that has somehow led to this present experience of sentient existence. Animal life (excluding that of humans) shows that life is a simple matter of being, by means of a modest routine of eating, sleeping and reproducing. Animals balance their days between these necessities, doing only what their bodies ask of them. The life of vegetation is not far from that of animals. They eat and sleep and reproduce in their own way, for the same result. So life is a beautiful and naturally harmonious borrowing of energy.

Yet we have taken it for granted. We have lost the power to simply be happy eating, sleeping, reproducing, believing we need a reason to be alive, a purpose and a goal to reach, so that on our deathbeds (something we have been made to fear) we can look back and tell ourselves we have done something with our lives. Life has lost its purpose because we have tried to give it one. The truth is that we are no more significant than the sand by the sea or the clouds in the sky. No more significant. But as significant.

No matter what your race, religion or gender, when you first step outside your door in the morning and feel the fresh air in your lungs and the morning sun on your face, you close your eyes and smile. In that moment you are feeling life as it should be. No defining, no understanding, no thinking. Just that feeling of pure bliss. For that is what life is.

Courtney Walsh, Farnborough, Hampshire

Of all Webster’s definitions of ‘life’, the one for me that best covers it is, “the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual.” Indeed, life is a continuum of accomplishment, failure, discovery, dilemma, challenge, boredom, sadness, disappointment, appreciation, the giving and receipt of grace, empathy, peace, and our reactions to all sorts of stimuli – touch, love, friendship, loss… One can either merely exist or try to achieve, working through the difficult times, perhaps learning a thing or two. Everyone has a story. I’ve been surprised when learning something new about an acquaintance or friend that must have been very difficult to manage or survive; but there they are in front of me. It’s how you come out on the other side of those challenging times that is important. How you land, get on with it, and keep on truckin’.

Life cannot be planned: there’s fate, and there’s simple bad luck. Failure can bring crushing disappointment, or you can try and make a new plan. A person can waste an inordinate amount of time mourning what they don’t have, or plans that don’t work out. But who wants to waste that much time regretting?

Life has happy surprises, small moments to cherish. It’s a matter of weighing the good and bad times – the challenge is to balance both, ending up with a life looked back on that was worth the mighty effort. I’m not meaning to sound like a Pollyanna – I assure you I’m not – it’s just more pleasant to strive for a modicum of equilibrium. If I can manage that, I’m good.

Cheryl Anderson, Kenilworth, Illinois

“Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player, That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more. It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.” ( Macbeth , Act V, Scene V)

These words of Shakespeare’s Macbeth summarize interesting ideas about the nature of life. The first line expresses two of the three marks of existence as per Buddhist thinking, Anicca , impermanence, and Anatta , non-self: a “walking shadow” is as insubstantial and impermanent as anything imaginable; a “poor player” neither creates nor directs his role, and the character being played only exists because of an author. Macbeth’s entire statement, particularly the last sentence, expresses the third Buddhist mark of existence: Dukkha , dissatisfaction.

The stage metaphor in the second line represents boundaries or limits. Scientific research into the nature of life often focuses on the material, energetic, and temporal limitations within which life can exist. The temporal limit of life is known as death. In the spirit of this interpretation, the idea of being “heard no more” could imply that life constantly evolves new forms while discarding older ones.

Macbeth hints at the wisdom of mystery traditions while anticipating the revelations of genetic science by stating that life “is a tale”. Now, this refers to the language-based, or code-based, nature of life. Readers may consider this in relation to DNA and RNA, and also in relation to John’s Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (The implications of the phrase “told by an idiot” exceed the scope of this inquiry.)

In five concise and poetic lines, Shakespeare defined life as an impermanent, non-self-directed, unsatisfactory, limited, ever-changing, and ultimately insignificant code.

Devon Hall, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Life is the realisation of its own contingency. But that’s not the end of it; it’s merely the means towards the creation of meaning. Life is thus a constant process of becoming, through creating values and meaning. Life is therefore perpetual transcendence, always moving into the future, creating the present. Life is also acceptance: the acceptance of finitude; acceptance of one’s responsibilities; acceptance of other human beings’ existence and choices. Life is neither fixed nor absolute, it is ambiguous; life is the possibilities entailed by existence. Life is the consciousness of humanity; it is perception of the world and the universe. So life is sadness; life is death. Life is suffering and destruction. But life is also happiness; life is living. Life is joy and creativity. Life is finding a cause to survive, a reason not to die – not yet. It is youth and old age, with everything in between. Overall, life is beautiful – ugliness is fleeting. Corpses and skeletons are lugubrious; living flesh is resplendent, all bodies are statuesque. Human life is love and hate, but it can only be life when we are with others. Life as fear and hatred is not real life at all. For some, life is God. We would all then be His children. We are nevertheless the spawn of the Earth.

Human existence is freedom – an edifice of plurality.

Greg Chatterton, Cupar, Fife

If the ancients could do philosophy in the marketplace, maybe I can too. So I employed some modern technology by texting the question ‘What is Life?’ to all my contacts. I didn’t explain the context of the question, to avoid lyrical waxing. Here are a sample of replies. Life is: being conscious of yourself and others; a being with a soul; experience; what you make it; your chance to be a success; family; living as long as you can; not being dead; greater than the sum of its parts; complex chemical organisation; different things to different people; a mystery; a journey; don’t know; a quote from a song, “baby don’t hurt me”; life begins after death. I asked a regular in my favourite café. They said, “man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.” A person suffering from a degenerative disease answered: “life is sh** then you die.” Another with the same illness interviewed in our local newspaper said, “My life is a mission to help other sufferers.” A colleague said “some would want to shoot themselves if they had my life, but I’m happy.” I posed the question at my art club and we did no painting that day…

I was surprised to find that I had no immediate definition of life myself (hence the idea to ask) and that there is no consensus (only one reply was repeated), but then, that also is life.

I sometimes catch myself considering life when I arrive at the turning point on my evening walk. It’s a dark spot which makes stargazing easier, and the heavens are a good place to start, since life as we know it began there (the heavier atoms like carbon which make up our bodies initially formed in dying Red Giant stars). This makes me feel two things about my life: it’s a dot because the cosmos is immense; but it’s an important dot in the cosmos because I can consider it.

Kristine Kerr, Gourock, Renfrewshire

Next Question of the Month

Now we know what life is, the next question is, How Should I Live? Please give and justify your ethical advice in less than 400 words. The prize is a semi-random book from our book mountain. Subject lines or envelopes should be marked ‘Question of the Month’, and must be received by 9th June. If you want a chance of getting a book, please include your physical address. Submission implies permission to reproduce your answer physically and electronically. Thank you.

This site uses cookies to recognize users and allow us to analyse site usage. By continuing to browse the site with cookies enabled in your browser, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our privacy policy . X

Subject List
Take a Tour
For Authors
Subscriber Services
Publications
African American Studies
African Studies
American Literature
Anthropology
Architecture Planning and Preservation
Art History
Atlantic History
Biblical Studies
British and Irish Literature
Childhood Studies
Chinese Studies
Cinema and Media Studies
Communication
Criminology
Environmental Science
Evolutionary Biology
International Law
International Relations
Islamic Studies
Jewish Studies
Latin American Studies
Latino Studies
Linguistics
Literary and Critical Theory
Medieval Studies
Military History
Political Science
Public Health
Renaissance and Reformation
Social Work
Urban Studies
Victorian Literature
Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section The Meaning of Life

Introduction, introductory works.

General Overviews
Anthologies
Precursors to the Contemporary Debate
The Meaning of “Meaning”
God-based Theories
Soul-based Theories
Subjectivism
Intersubjectivism
Objectivism
Non-Naturalism

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

Alfred North Whitehead
Feminist Aesthetics
Find more forthcoming articles...
Export Citations
Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

The Meaning of Life by Thaddeus Metz LAST REVIEWED: 11 November 2019 LAST MODIFIED: 10 May 2010 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195396577-0070

For millennia, thinkers have addressed the question of what, if anything, makes a life meaningful in some form or other. This article concentrates nearly exclusively on approaches to the question taken by analytic philosophers in the postwar era, by and large omitting reference to prewar Anglo-American works, texts from other traditions such as Continental or African philosophy, and writings from nonphilosophical but related fields such as religion and psychology. Much of the contemporary analytic discussion has sought to articulate and evaluate theories of meaning in life, i.e., general and fundamental principles of what all meaningful conditions have in common as distinct from meaningless ones. This entry accordingly focuses largely on these theories, which are distinguished according to the kind of property that is held to constitute meaning in life (see Supernaturalism , Naturalism , and Non-Naturalism ).

These texts are more introductory or have been written in a way that would likely be accessible to those not thoroughly trained in analytic philosophy. Baggini 2004 and Eagleton 2007 are pitched at a very wide, popular audience; Thomson 2003 and Belshaw 2005 would be best for undergraduate philosophy majors; and Belliotti 2001 , Martin 2002 , and Cottingham 2003 are probably most apt for those with some kind of university education or other intellectual development, not necessarily in Anglo-American philosophy.

Baggini, Julian. What’s It All About? Philosophy and the Meaning of Life . London: Granta, 2004.

Defends the view that meaning in life is largely a function of love; addresses approaches or maxims (e.g., Carpe diem ) more than it does principles.

Belliotti, Raymond Angelo. What Is the Meaning of Human Life? Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2001.

A thoughtful treatment of a variety of issues; defends an objective naturalist approach to meaning in the context of critical discussion of classic thinkers such as Aristotle, Nietzsche, and Schopenhauer.

Belshaw, Christopher. Ten Good Questions about Life and Death . Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005.

Engagingly written, analytic treatments of several key “life and death” issues, many of which bear on meaningfulness, which the author cashes out objectively in terms of relationships and projects.

Cottingham, John. On the Meaning of Life . Thinking in Action. London: Routledge, 2003.

An elegantly written book that defends an Aristotelian, God-based (but not soul-based) approach to meaning in life.

Eagleton, Terry. The Meaning of Life: A Very Short Introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

A light and lively essay on a variety of facets of the question of life’s meaning, often addressing linguistic and literary themes. Rejects subjective or “postmodern” approaches to meaning in favor of a need for harmonious or loving relationships.

Martin, Michael. Atheism, Morality, and Meaning . Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2002.

A vigorous defense of a naturalist approach to morality, in the first half of the book, and to meaning, in the second. Very critical of Christian approaches to both.

Thomson, Garrett. On the Meaning of Life . London: Thompson/Wadsworth, 2003.

Argues that nine common views on meaning in life (e.g., that an infinite being is necessary for meaning or that meaning is exhausted by happiness) are flawed. Emphasizes that meaning must reside largely in activities we engage in, lest our lives be reduced to “tools” for the sake of ends beyond us.

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

About Philosophy »
Meet the Editorial Board »
A Priori Knowledge
Abduction and Explanatory Reasoning
Abstract Objects
Addams, Jane
Adorno, Theodor
Aesthetic Hedonism
Aesthetics, Analytic Approaches to
Aesthetics, Continental
Aesthetics, Environmental
Aesthetics, History of
African Philosophy, Contemporary
Alexander, Samuel
Analytic/Synthetic Distinction
Anarchism, Philosophical
Animal Rights
Anscombe, G. E. M.
Anthropic Principle, The
Applied Ethics
Aquinas, Thomas
Argument Mapping
Art and Emotion
Art and Knowledge
Art and Morality
Astell, Mary
Aurelius, Marcus
Austin, J. L.
Bacon, Francis
Bayesianism
Bergson, Henri
Berkeley, George
Biology, Philosophy of
Bolzano, Bernard
Boredom, Philosophy of
British Idealism
Buber, Martin
Buddhist Philosophy
Burge, Tyler
Business Ethics
Camus, Albert
Canterbury, Anselm of
Carnap, Rudolf
Cavendish, Margaret
Chemistry, Philosophy of
Childhood, Philosophy of
Chinese Philosophy
Cognitive Ability
Cognitive Phenomenology
Cognitive Science, Philosophy of
Coherentism
Communitarianism
Computational Science
Computer Science, Philosophy of
Computer Simulations
Comte, Auguste
Conceptual Role Semantics
Conditionals
Confirmation
Connectionism
Consciousness
Constructive Empiricism
Contemporary Hylomorphism
Contextualism
Contrastivism
Cook Wilson, John
Cosmology, Philosophy of
Critical Theory
Culture and Cognition
Daoism and Philosophy
Davidson, Donald
de Beauvoir, Simone
de Montaigne, Michel
Decision Theory
Deleuze, Gilles
Derrida, Jacques
Descartes, René
Descartes, René: Sensory Representations
Descriptions
Dewey, John
Dialetheism
Disagreement, Epistemology of
Disjunctivism
Dispositions
Divine Command Theory
Doing and Allowing
du Châtelet, Emilie
Dummett, Michael
Dutch Book Arguments
Early Modern Philosophy, 1600-1750
Eastern Orthodox Philosophical Thought
Education, Philosophy of
Engineering, Philosophy and Ethics of
Environmental Philosophy
Epistemic Basing Relation
Epistemic Defeat
Epistemic Injustice
Epistemic Justification
Epistemic Philosophy of Logic
Epistemology
Epistemology and Active Externalism
Epistemology, Bayesian
Epistemology, Feminist
Epistemology, Internalism and Externalism in
Epistemology, Moral
Epistemology of Education
Ethical Consequentialism
Ethical Deontology
Ethical Intuitionism
Eugenics and Philosophy
Events, The Philosophy of
Evidence-Based Medicine, Philosophy of
Evidential Support Relation In Epistemology, The
Evolutionary Debunking Arguments in Ethics
Evolutionary Epistemology
Experimental Philosophy
Explanations of Religion
Extended Mind Thesis, The
Externalism and Internalism in the Philosophy of Mind
Faith, Conceptions of
Feminist Philosophy
Feyerabend, Paul
Fichte, Johann Gottlieb
Fictionalism
Fictionalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics
Film, Philosophy of
Foot, Philippa
Foreknowledge
Forgiveness
Formal Epistemology
Foucault, Michel
Frege, Gottlob
Gadamer, Hans-Georg
Geometry, Epistemology of
God, Arguments for the Existence of
God, The Existence and Attributes of
Grice, Paul
Habermas, Jürgen
Hart, H. L. A.
Heaven and Hell
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: Aesthetics
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: Metaphysics
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: Philosophy of History
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: Philosophy of Politics
Heidegger, Martin: Early Works
Hermeneutics
Higher Education, Philosophy of
History, Philosophy of
Hobbes, Thomas
Horkheimer, Max
Human Rights
Hume, David: Aesthetics
Hume, David: Moral and Political Philosophy
Husserl, Edmund
Idealizations in Science
Identity in Physics
Imagination
Imagination and Belief
Immanuel Kant: Political and Legal Philosophy
Impossible Worlds
Incommensurability in Science
Indian Philosophy
Indispensability of Mathematics
Inductive Reasoning
Instruments in Science
Intellectual Humility
Intentionality, Collective
James, William
Japanese Philosophy
Kant and the Laws of Nature
Kant, Immanuel: Aesthetics and Teleology
Kant, Immanuel: Ethics
Kant, Immanuel: Theoretical Philosophy
Kierkegaard, Søren
Knowledge-first Epistemology
Knowledge-How
Kristeva, Julia
Kuhn, Thomas S.
Lacan, Jacques
Lakatos, Imre
Langer, Susanne
Language of Thought
Language, Philosophy of
Latin American Philosophy
Laws of Nature
Legal Epistemology
Legal Philosophy
Legal Positivism
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm
Levinas, Emmanuel
Lewis, C. I.
Literature, Philosophy of
Locke, John
Locke, John: Identity, Persons, and Personal Identity
Lottery and Preface Paradoxes, The
Machiavelli, Niccolò
Martin Heidegger: Later Works
Martin Heidegger: Middle Works
Material Constitution
Mathematical Explanation
Mathematical Pluralism
Mathematical Structuralism
Mathematics, Ontology of
Mathematics, Philosophy of
Mathematics, Visual Thinking in
McDowell, John
McTaggart, John
Meaning of Life, The
Mechanisms in Science
Medically Assisted Dying
Medicine, Contemporary Philosophy of
Medieval Logic
Medieval Philosophy
Mental Causation
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice
Meta-epistemological Skepticism
Metaepistemology
Metametaphysics
Metaphilosophy
Metaphysical Grounding
Metaphysics, Contemporary
Metaphysics, Feminist
Midgley, Mary
Mill, John Stuart
Mind, Metaphysics of
Modal Epistemology
Models and Theories in Science
Montesquieu
Moore, G. E.
Moral Contractualism
Moral Naturalism and Nonnaturalism
Moral Responsibility
Multiculturalism
Murdoch, Iris
Music, Analytic Philosophy of
Nationalism
Natural Kinds
Naturalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics
Naïve Realism
Neo-Confucianism
Neuroscience, Philosophy of
Nietzsche, Friedrich
Nonexistent Objects
Normative Ethics
Normative Foundations, Philosophy of Law:
Normativity and Social Explanation
Objectivity
Occasionalism
Ontological Dependence
Ontology of Art
Ordinary Objects
Other Minds
Panpsychism
Particularism in Ethics
Pascal, Blaise
Paternalism
Peirce, Charles Sanders
Perception, Cognition, Action
Perception, The Problem of
Perfectionism
Persistence
Personal Identity
Phenomenal Concepts
Phenomenal Conservatism
Phenomenology
Philosophy for Children
Photography, Analytic Philosophy of
Physicalism
Physicalism and Metaphysical Naturalism
Physics, Experiments in
Political Epistemology
Political Obligation
Political Philosophy
Popper, Karl
Pornography and Objectification, Analytic Approaches to
Practical Knowledge
Practical Moral Skepticism
Practical Reason
Probabilistic Representations of Belief
Probability, Interpretations of
Problem of Divine Hiddenness, The
Problem of Evil, The
Propositions
Psychology, Philosophy of
Quine, W. V. O.
Racist Jokes
Rationalism
Rationality
Rawls, John: Moral and Political Philosophy
Realism and Anti-Realism
Realization
Reasons in Epistemology
Reductionism in Biology
Reference, Theory of
Reid, Thomas
Reliabilism
Religion, Philosophy of
Religious Belief, Epistemology of
Religious Experience
Religious Pluralism
Ricoeur, Paul
Risk, Philosophy of
Rorty, Richard
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques
Rule-Following
Russell, Bertrand
Ryle, Gilbert
Sartre, Jean-Paul
Schopenhauer, Arthur
Science and Religion
Science, Theoretical Virtues in
Scientific Explanation
Scientific Progress
Scientific Realism
Scientific Representation
Scientific Revolutions
Scotus, Duns
Self-Knowledge
Sellars, Wilfrid
Semantic Externalism
Semantic Minimalism
Senses, The
Sensitivity Principle in Epistemology
Shepherd, Mary
Singular Thought
Situated Cognition
Situationism and Virtue Theory
Skepticism, Contemporary
Skepticism, History of
Slurs, Pejoratives, and Hate Speech
Smith, Adam: Moral and Political Philosophy
Social Aspects of Scientific Knowledge
Social Epistemology
Social Identity
Sounds and Auditory Perception
Space and Time
Speech Acts
Spinoza, Baruch
Stebbing, Susan
Strawson, P. F.
Structural Realism
Supererogation
Supervenience
Tarski, Alfred
Technology, Philosophy of
Testimony, Epistemology of
Theoretical Terms in Science
Thomas Aquinas' Philosophy of Religion
Thought Experiments
Time and Tense
Time Travel
Transcendental Arguments
Truth and the Aim of Belief
Truthmaking
Turing Test
Two-Dimensional Semantics
Understanding
Uniqueness and Permissiveness in Epistemology
Utilitarianism
Value of Knowledge
Vienna Circle
Virtue Epistemology
Virtue Ethics
Virtues, Epistemic
Virtues, Intellectual
Voluntarism, Doxastic
Weakness of Will
Weil, Simone
William of Ockham
Williams, Bernard
Wittgenstein, Ludwig: Early Works
Wittgenstein, Ludwig: Later Works
Wittgenstein, Ludwig: Middle Works
Wollstonecraft, Mary
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy
Legal Notice
Accessibility

[66.249.64.20|185.66.15.189]
185.66.15.189

Undergraduate
High School
Architecture
American History
Asian History
Antique Literature
American Literature
Asian Literature
Classic English Literature
World Literature
Creative Writing
Linguistics
Criminal Justice
Legal Issues
Anthropology
Archaeology
Political Science
World Affairs
African-American Studies
East European Studies
Latin-American Studies
Native-American Studies
West European Studies
Family and Consumer Science
Social Issues
Women and Gender Studies
Social Work
Natural Sciences
Pharmacology
Earth science
Agriculture
Agricultural Studies
Computer Science
IT Management
Mathematics
Investments
Engineering and Technology
Engineering
Aeronautics
Medicine and Health
Alternative Medicine
Communications and Media
Advertising
Communication Strategies
Public Relations
Educational Theories
Teacher's Career
Chicago/Turabian
Company Analysis
Education Theories
Shakespeare
Canadian Studies
Food Safety
Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
Movie Review
Admission Essay
Annotated Bibliography
Application Essay
Article Critique
Article Review
Article Writing
Book Review
Business Plan
Business Proposal
Capstone Project
Cover Letter
Creative Essay
Dissertation
Dissertation - Abstract
Dissertation - Conclusion
Dissertation - Discussion
Dissertation - Hypothesis
Dissertation - Introduction
Dissertation - Literature
Dissertation - Methodology
Dissertation - Results
GCSE Coursework
Grant Proposal
Marketing Plan
Multiple Choice Quiz
Personal Statement
Power Point Presentation
Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
Questionnaire
Reaction Paper

Research Paper

Research Proposal
SWOT analysis
Thesis Paper
Online Quiz
Literature Review
Movie Analysis
Statistics problem
Math Problem
All papers examples
How It Works
Money Back Policy
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
We Are Hiring

My Personal Philosophy of Life, Essay Example

Pages: 6

Words: 1689

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

I am the third of five children: I have two older sisters and two younger brothers. My big family helped me to realize the importance of family relations and it has been a basis of my future convictions. Person is an indivisible part of the family. Another thing about my childhood is that I have been involved in the nursing field from the time I could work. I started my nursing practice as a nurse aid at the age of sixteen. Strange as it may seem, I never seriously thought about being a nurse until many years later and many failed attempts at other careers. My transcript speaks for itself. I went a long way to nursing: I did not become a nurse until I was thirty one and pregnant at the time with twins. My professional choice is thoughtful and I do know what I want to get from the course.

I am not a light-minded girl and I have my own life principle, and I always try to adhere to it. My philosophy of life is “life is not always easy and you have to work hard for what you want.” Though for someone it may sound like a commonplace, in fact it is not. Such philosophy came as a result of my life, of my experience, and I believe that it helps me to withstand difficult situations.

As English proverb claims, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride, and I totally agree with it. Usually, tangible achievements come as a result of long and hard work. I perceive difficult tasks just like challenges and I understand that they are beneficial to my skills and my experience. Nursing school was not easy, studying in Framingham state college is not easy, but I know that I will reap the benefits in the end. It takes some doing to achieve good results, but I know it is the way it always happens. And everyone has to work hard for what they have ‘everyone’. Nursing is not an easy profession but I do believe that it is a way to help people understand that they should work for their wellness too, they should cooperate with nurses and then any results are achievable.

My Professional Philosophy of Nursing

When I think back now as to why I went into nursing school, I cannot come up with any clear reason. May be, it was a moment of inspiration, because then I had no strong intention of being a nurse. However, now I know that this is what I was destined to do with my life. All careers I have tried failed to provide that certainty.

I have my own perception of nursing practice, and it is my own professional philosophy. I am here to help people live a healthier, happier, and longer life. I am not striving for lofty aims; neither do I resort to common knowledge. I just feel that it is the very thing that nurses should do. Though I have come up with this idea, it is difficult to adhere to it. I feel that frequently I fail to promote this philosophy and focus on the immediate task. And that is why I study more and hone my skills.

I work as an emergency room nurse now. Actually, it is rather hard to stand back and look at the patient as a whole when you are trying to fix him or her. When they are broken, say, their blood pressure is 70/40 and you need to focus on the I.V., fluids, and blood products, it is hardly impossible to concentrate on their integrity and reasons of their illness. Current and urgent actions outweigh philosophical questions and perceptual issues.

Now I realize that helping people to recover their health does not come to just fixing their blood pressure or their broken arm. While having them in the emergency room it is teaching that I perform to help them cope with their illness or limitations. In order to better serve the patient and the family I need to consider the person as a physiological, psychological, sociocultural, and developmental being. This concept is difficult in itself, but to make people think that they are able to recover, to communicate with their relatives, to provide help and support I should embody this concept.

Just corresponding to my nursing career my philosophy of nursing is always changing and evolving. New circumstances and new cases help me to concentrate on important psychological aspects of nursing, to realize needs of ill people and make necessary decisions. They make my understanding of human needs more profound, and this enables me to help them to live healthy, happy and long lives.

My Personal and Professional Philosophy Integrated With the Framingham State

Conceptual Framework

The Framingham state college philosophy states that we need to focus “on the person as a physiological, psychological, sociocultural, and developmental being who progresses through the life cycle as a unified whole within the environment.” I do believe that we need to look at the person and the family as a whole. According to the Framingham State College Philosophy “the faculty believes that the goal of nursing is to promote the person’s movement along the wellness-illness continuum toward high-level wellness.” The way we promote the movement along the wellness-illness continuum is through education of out patients. We as nurses do not necessarily need to change the patient or family environment. To say the least, it is a difficult task. But what we can do is help them to cope with the environment that they live in to promote wellness. But we must inform our patients about what the way to wellness looks like. We do need to let patient know that it is not always easy. There is no one pill that cures everything.

Here my own life philosophy coincides with the Framingham state college idea. I think that there are no easy ways to deal with serious illness or limitation. So in order to evaluate some compromise way to recover that would be easy to follow I explore the patient as a whole: his or her lifestyle, habits, environment, etc. I usually try to persuade people that in order to get better or prevent their illness they should change something: say, their behavior, habits, diet, or lifestyles.

As prevention is better that cure, the college emphasizes the importance of prevention. Whether prevention means reduction of risk of being ill or general promotion of wellness or it means in-time detection and prevention of further worsening, or even prevention of consequences of the existing illness, it is achieved through promotion of wellness. The philosophy of college claims that promotion of wellness is an important part of the cure, and my personal philosophy also supports this idea. Everyone has an ability to withstand the illness being provided with a professional and timely help. And then it is necessary to understand that nurses are able to provide that kind of help, but not everything can be done by nurses. Something is always left for the patient’s work.

The Framingham college course underlines the importance of nurses in preventive health care. Nurses can influence people and make decisions concerning their health conditions. It is not a part of usual nursing course, and it is important to integrate these principles of preventive health care into usual working practice. As I have mentioned, it is not that easy but in the long run worth doing. It requires new skills and knowledge of behavioral and natural sciences and change of attitude to the patient sometimes.

What is really important for the college philosophy is not just taking care of health, but providing education, assistance and advocacy to people. Nurses should not be just medical profession, they should communicate with their patients and involve them into decision making if necessary. But the role of nurse must be leading as nurses are responsible for all decisions. Also, nurses should hone their skills constantly in communities, within collectives, and strive for betterment of their nursing practice. Actually, promoting wellness is a complex mission and it requires certain skills and approaches.

I think that in general my personal philosophy does comply with the philosophy of the college. College philosophy requires nurses to learn constantly and to improve their skills, to change the professional attitude to patients from the medical to more humanistic, socioeconomic, etc. I understand that it is necessary and in the long run it will improve my nursing skills noticeably. Professional nurses should be able to help patients to withstand their illnesses, and not only by means of pills and injections. Promoting wellness is a part of prevention of future diseases. For me, this idea is really great and it is the very thing I need to study and promote. It corresponds to my idea of providing wellness through nursing, and to my philosophy of life.

Life is not easy, work is not easy, but we as nurses can ease lives of our patients and help them to recover. We are able to make the patient’s life healthier and better on the other level. All we need is improvement of nursing skills with social and humanities studies. Then patients face the reality and come up with idea that nothing comes without efforts. They realize that they are provided with extraordinary help but their wellness depends on their own efforts, too. So the philosophy of college, my personal professional philosophy and my philosophy of life are interwoven; though college idea of nursing is stable, my own convictions change as I learn more and improve my experience.

We as nurses are always working towards the highest level of wellness, either in our family, in our careers, or in our self. And we need to do the same for our patients, as we possess knowledge that is unavailable to our patients. We as nurses have an extraordinary influence on our patients and the public. We need to promote education and have the ability to promote compliance. We need to look at the patient or family as a whole and remember that at some point in time we will have someone in the health care system and could only wish the same care we would give.

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

The Role of Modern Governor, Essay Example

Carter G. Woodson, Research Paper Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

Free Life Philosophy Essay Examples & Topics

Assigned to write a philosophical essay about life? It doesn’t mean that you have to discuss and question your own experience. After all, not every student possesses fully formed life principles that they are ready to divulge in an academic paper. The term’s definition can give you a hint on how to explore the subject.

What is life philosophy? There are two approaches to this concept. It can be explained as a person’s attitude towards the purpose of life in general. At the same time, the term can refer to the German movement of Lebensphilosophie. The general idea of this philosophy was that we could only understand the purpose of life through the experience of living.

Therefore, a life philosophy essay can be composed from a singular point of view concerning reality. Or it can be written referencing and analyzing the philosophical movement. In this article, our team has offered you some advice in writing such a complicated paper. You will also find free philosophy in life essay samples created by other students.

Helpful Life Philosophy Examples

Ready to explore the meaning of life philosophy? Essays written about this concept will have to touch upon its definition and related ideas. Plenty of philosophers have studied the questions of life and death. So, you will have a lot of ground to cover.

Here are some life philosophy examples you can explore or mention in your paper:

Lebensphilosophie

As was mentioned previously, Lebensphilosophie is the German philosophical movement of understanding life. The central teaching of this movement is that existence can only be realized from within. It rejects the idea of abstract thought and emphasizes the importance of everyday life.

This movement has different variations, such as the idea that there is no truth or that existence is useless. Ultimately though, its proponents reject all meaning of life. Nihilism questions the extent of human knowledge. Plus, it often challenges established morals and ethics.

Unlike some may believe, idealism doesn’t equate to a belief in a happy life. Its explanation lies in the human understanding of the world. Idealists claim that reality is constructed through our subjective perception of it.

Philosophical realism

In contrast to idealism, realism states that some objects and concepts exist independent of the human mind. It doesn’t bother with philosophical questions about whether we can be confident that anything exists outside our brains. In this view, reality is a concrete fact established through observation and evidence.

Religious philosophy

Any school of thought influenced by teachings from a particular religion can be regarded as a religious philosophy. Every religion has its own philosophy. However, they are united by the belief in a higher deity that created the universe. Furthermore, philosophies such as deism suggest that the existence of this being can be proven with empirical evidence.

The relativist philosophy denies objectivity. It holds that facts are relative to the perspective of each separate individual. It states that there is no absolute truth – everyone’s definition of a good life is different. There are various forms of relativism discussing numerous subjects and domains.

Tips for Philosophical Essay about Life

Still uncertain what the good life philosophy is? Thankfully, you don’t need to figure that out to write a decent paper. Here, we have discussed how to achieve success in your philosophy in life essay.

Research your topic. You have to be sure that you carefully parse through all the relevant material. Keep your research question in mind when thinking about your idea. Spend enough time studying and formulating your topic . Don’t hesitate to reread the sources you’ve already read.
Come up with a thesis. Your thesis statement needs to be reflective of the topic you are researching. It should also illustrate the stance you are taking to the audience. This will be the argument you will discuss in the body of your paper.
Introduce the topic, the context, and your thesis. The introduction is the perfect place to familiarize your readers with the context. Besides, here you can define any vital terminology. Keep your audience in mind while doing so. Whether you are writing for tenured professors or teenagers, it will impact the content of your introduction.
Provide your arguments. Outline the points you or the philosophers you’re writing about are trying to make. Once you have explained the views, you can proceed to analyze them. Remember to provide counterarguments and a response to those that you can find.
Prove your points with examples. It is vital to support your claims with evidence not to sound baseless. Include quotes and citations from the sources you’re using. Referencing your research will prove that you have done it and understood the topic.
Conclude your paper. In your conclusion, summarize your essay . You can also discuss the limitations and impacts of the philosophy you have studied. A good way of wrapping up your paper could be setting out problems that remain. However, try not to make any new claims that you haven’t yet made in the body.

Thank you for your attention! Below, you will find life philosophy essay examples. These will help you see how our tips are applied in practice.

227 Best Essay Examples on Life Philosophy

What change would you like to see in the world.

Words: 1708

Reflection Paper About Values

The concept of death in literature and human life.

Words: 1731

Individual Perspective on Responsibility

Life after death.

Words: 1354

Changes in Life: Positive and Negative Effects

“love” by clarice lispector, mrs. mallard’s feelings about her husband, “existence precedes essence” a term by sartre, the difference between right and wrong.

Words: 1125

Kant`s View on Homosexuality

Words: 1107

Money, Happiness and Relationship Between Them

Words: 1128

“The Ways We Lie” by Stephanie Ericsson

The mystery of god and human being in “man’s search for meaning” by frankl, intoxicated by my illness and a father’s faith: comparison, spiritual and physical journeys in human life, death and the afterlife: a spiritual world after death.

Words: 1681

Life is a Sea of Suffering, and Sorrow Gives Meaning to Life

Comparison of jean-paul sartre’s and viktor frankl’s theories, peace: definition and philosophic meaning, why are we afraid of death, the virtuous life importance, kafka’s ‘the metamorphosis’ and ‘spider-man’ comparison.

Words: 1152

Can a Person Choose to Be Happy?

Personal philosophy of success, reflection and reflective practice: personal experience.

Words: 1516

Money, Success, and Relation Between Them

Words: 2255

Philosophy of Leisure and Recreation

“prospects for a critical regionalism” by kenneth frampton: the concept of universalization, the meaning of life: philosophical approaches, never stop personal development: the views of philosophers and writers, dead or alive: wright’s movie “shaun of the dead”.

Words: 1101

Changes in American Sexual Values Since 1950s

Words: 1102

Happiness and Success as a Life Meaning

Cultural theory: uses and disadvantages of history for life.

Words: 1230

Symbol as an Integral Part of a Human’s Life

Personal opinion and outlook on life.

Words: 1208

Money, Happiness and Satisfaction With Life

Augustine: on free choice of the will, the virtue of courage in theories and experience.

Words: 2476

The Meanings of Lives by Susan Wolf

What is the relationship between mind and body.

Words: 1763

Philosophy as a Way of Life

Words: 1834

The Greatest Source of Human Frustration or Misery

The myth about sisyphus and the meaning of human life.

Words: 1303

Beach: A Review of the Term

Two attitudes toward money, you cannot value life as life has no value.

Words: 1494

Sigmund Freud’s Ideas of Happiness

Words: 1239

Conceptual Metaphor: Life Is Like a Game of Chess

Words: 1700

“The Fallacy of Success” by G. K. Chesterton

My current philosophical perspective on life.

Words: 1483

“What Is the Meaning of Life?” in the Works of Gilgamesh and Agamemnon

Moral dilemma and ethics: moral philosophy, ancient greek and roman cynicism, the examined life film reaction, moral virtue and its relation to happiness, life meaning from humanist and other perspectives, studying philosophy: what are the main benefits, anger: philosophical perspective.

Words: 1146

Solitude, Doxa, and Relativism in Human Relations

Words: 1112

The Wisdom of Silenus: The Meaning of Life & Death

Camus and feinberg on absurdity of human condition.

Words: 2053

Philosophy and the Meaning of Life

Meaning in life by susan wolf: essay reflection, philosophical assumptions and interpretive frameworks, common sense: philosophical perspective, are we free to act and think as we like.

Words: 2236

Kant’s Moral Philosophy: Cheaters

Modern human problems in “on being” podcast, tolstoy’s, camus’ and taylor’s views on life meaning.

Words: 1664

The Search for Meaning or Purpose of Existence

Wellbeing: hedonic and eudaimonic philosophies, “where we live and what we live for”: living simple and deliberately.

Words: 1215

Purpose and Vulnerability in Human Life

The benefit of existence in philosophy, philosophy: the absurdity of lives, reincarnation from a philosophical viewpoint: what famous thinkers would have to say, socrates: the unexamined life is not worth living, death and stages of grief, philosophy prospectus: why should we be moral, aurelius’ “meditations”: stoicism in the pandemic, exegetical paper on aristotle: meaning of happiness, the meaning of life on one’s story, philosophy of art objects, aesthetics, the use of moral and political theories in business, a moral expert: is there such a thing, the economic value of life, plato’s “the allegory of the cave”: personal review, understanding wisdom: works and studies, self-awareness and meaningful living.

Words: 1382

Changed Views of Happiness: Context and Aim of the Definition

The quote “there are nothing but gifts on this poor, poor earth” by czeslaw milosz.

Words: 1109

Wellness of Creativity Within the Society

Western philosophy: david hume on suicide, the discussion between socrates and meno regarding the significance of knowledge, values and the ethics of whistleblowing, critical evaluation of nozick’s account of love.

Words: 1399

Socrates as Depicted in Equal Opportunities

The human superiority complex.

Words: 1169

Key to Success in Life

Words: 1733

Albert Camus’ Sisyphus Treatise and The Plague Review

Truth understanding according to huw price, philosophical view on the process of education, who is qualified to survive.

Words: 1111

Wise Judgment: Ethics, Accountability, and Human Conscience

Love: a review of the term, the meaning of the natural law, h. d. thoreau: unacknowledged genius who stayed hermit, historical discourse of sexuality by michel foucault.

Words: 2824

Leadership Styles in Chinese Philosophy

“war and innocence” by robert fullinwinder, the definition of universal justice.

Words: 1414

The Best Things in Life Are Free

“twenty questions: an introduction to philosophy” by g.lee bowie, wilderness as a way helping to reach isolation.

Words: 2203

Life Meaning from Different Perspectives

The meaning of life by richard taylor.

Words: 1159

Money Makes You Happy: Philosophical Reasoning

Knowledge as nonexistent notion.

Words: 1583

Table of Contents
Random Entry
Chronological
Editorial Information
About the SEP
Editorial Board
How to Cite the SEP
Special Characters
Advanced Tools
Support the SEP
PDFs for SEP Friends
Make a Donation
SEPIA for Libraries
Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

Open a textbook in biology and you’ll find a purported definition of life, usually in the form of a list of characteristics that apply to organisms, their parts, their interactions, or their history. Often these definitions will be nothing more than descriptions or rely on more controversial theoretical commitments.

Like many basic concepts, it is difficult to non-controversially define life. Most people simply avoid the issue by ignoring marginal cases, accepting the vagueness of the boundary cases, or setting aside the whole issue as beyond their scope. Nonetheless, there are many people whose work seems to require a rigorous demarcation of life, especially in new scientific contexts, such as astrobiology, origins of life, or synthetic biology. As such, the nature of life continues to be a hotly debated topic.

This article focuses on the subject matter of biology: life. The first half of this article will focus on attempts to characterize life by both philosophers and scientists. The first section will describe alternative accounts of definitions, its two subsections will cover historical and contemporary definitions, and section 2 covers the recent countertrend in skepticism toward definitions of life. Because the various stakeholders have different goals, the second half will focus on those goals. Sections 3, 4, and 5 cover topics that some believe require a definition of life: artificial and synthetic life, the origin(s) of life, and the search for life in the Universe. Section 6 covers entities that are much larger or smaller than organisms, while section 7 covers the role life takes in the context of society, especially with respect to questions raised by new technology.

1.1 Definitions of Life from Antiquity to Darwin

1.2 contemporary definitions of life, 2. definitional skepticism, 3. artificial and synthetic life, 4. origin(s) of life, 5. search for life, 6. the macro and the micro perspectives, 7. ethics, law, and politics, 8. conclusion, other internet resources, related entries, 1. definition(s).

Few things in biology have been more extensively discussed than the definition of life. It is frustrating so little progress has been made on the topic in the face of so much research, theory, and debate. There are many reasons for this failure: disagreements about how abstract or specific definitions should be, different commitments as to what ought to be included in a definition, and even disagreement about the nature of definitions themselves. This section covers the nature and role of definitions. Each of these has been used in approaching the question of life.

Historically, when philosophers and scientists define a concept, the aim is to provide necessary and sufficient conditions. These theoretical definitions (also called real , ideal or philosophical definitions) are often impractical or fragile as they can be challenged with a single imagined counterexample. A classic case is the definition of “bachelors” as “unmarried males.” It is trivial to find examples that fit this definition without intuitively being bachelors: male dogs, baby boys, widowers, etc. Similarly, for any definition of life, one can either show living cases that are left out of the definition or non-living cases that are included by it. Life is organized, but so are geological formations. Life processes energy, but so does fire. Life evolves using complex biochemistry, but so do prions. Life is self-sustaining, but parasites are not. Life is at thermodynamic disequilibrium, but so is much else. As we’ll see shortly, perhaps theoretical definitions are too rigid a standard. The real world is far too complex for limited criteria to decide every marginal case.

Non-philosophers are typically quite frustrated by the back-and-forth that results from theoretical definitions. To that end, some favor operational (or working ) definitions, ones that work in practice to narrow down the range of phenomena under consideration. This approach is often not considered a kind of definition by philosophers (see Gupta 2021). Operational definitions tend to be philosophically shallow. For example, NASA’s operational definition of life as “a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution” (Joyce 1994) might include viruses while excluding mules. The lack of depth of an operational definition can frustrate theoretically minded people, including other scientists.

There are several other conceptions of definition, as well. The nominal (also lexicographer or dictionary ) definition is determined by analyzing usage. It will not work for cutting edge or controversial issues because such definitions follow the slow process of cultural acceptance rather than provide guidance to researchers at the forefront of these debates. Scholars are more likely to quote a dictionary definition than be illuminated by one.

There are also demonstrative or ostensive definitions, which are concepts we can convey by mere shared observations: “that is red” while pointing at a red object, for instance. Potter Stewart famously defined pornography in this manner by saying “I know it when I see it” (Stewart 1964). Knowledge by ostension may reflect epistemic access to a natural kind, although this may feel indistinguishable from an internalized cultural category. There is huge variation among what scientists consider ‘life,’ even among objects on Earth, like viruses and prions, which suggests this kind of definition is not viable for this target.

Then there are stipulative definitions, which are terms introduced and defined by fiat. A circle in Euclidean geometry can be defined as a round plane figure whose boundary consists of infinite points equidistant to a single other point. There are no possible counterexamples to this definition, given the axioms of Euclidean geometry. This approach provides little refuge in the real world. Consider an attempt to define swans as “white birds with long necks.” By stipulation, storks, great egrets, and many cranes would be swans, while Australia’s black swans would not. Such a quick and dirty definition seems to define the category out of hand and perhaps only works within accepted axioms or theories. Life could be stipulated as “carbon-based reproducing entities,” which would rule out silicon-based life by fiat. Such a definition merely pushes the debate to the scenarios in which the stipulated definition goes against intuitive notions.

The 20th century saw some steps away from definitions toward alternative views of concepts, notably prototypes , exemplars , and theories (Machery 2009). Prototype concepts are abstract features shared by most, but not all members of a category (Rosch & Mervis 1975; Rosch 1978; Hampton 1979, 2006; Smith 2002). The definitions of life in biology textbooks might be charitably understood as prototype concepts. So, too, are the property cluster natural kinds popular in philosophy of biology (Boyd 1991, 1999, 2010; Diguez 2013; Slater 2015). Exemplars are concepts built around similarity to a particular individual case (Medin & Schaffer 1978, Nosofsky 1986). Both prototypes and exemplar concepts rely on similarity to paradigmatic cases, with the former being an imagined ideal and the latter being a real instance (Komatsu 1992). For similarity-based concepts to work in scientific cases such as life, we need an account of which similarities matter, how much, and why. In contrast to similarity-based concepts, the requirements of theory concepts are somewhat more nebulous. Theory concepts are modeled on scientific theories and thus reflect their diversity (Carey 1985, Murphy & Medin 1985, Gopnik & Meltzoff 1997). At the core, theory concepts rely on explanations for why the members of a category share certain properties. Marginal cases of life, such as viruses, prions, or protocells, might be included in some theories of life but not others.

In sum, there are many potential approaches to definitions, each with different benefits, drawbacks, and standards of success. Much more could be said about these and other possible approaches, but this will suffice for our purposes. Some of the disagreements about defining life dissolve upon clarifying which type of definition or concept is being used. Many of the explicit attempts to define life have focused on either operational and philosophical definitions, while often not acknowledging or misunderstanding the distinction between these. One will note these two definitions are at cross-purposes – operational definitions can be quick and dirty, but philosophical definitions seek to give necessary and sufficient conditions. Less work has been done on life as a non-definitional concept, although that is perhaps changing.

This subsection briefly explores historical definitions of life. There are more in depth treatments of the matter, to which an interested reader should turn (Bedau & Cleland 2010, Riskin 2015, Mix 2018). Approaches to this issue vary widely across historians, philosophers, and scientists, so some skepticism about any individual author’s approach to the topic is warranted.

We begin with the Greeks. In several dialogues, notably the Phaedrus , Timeaus , and Republic , Plato divided life into three parts: vegetable life, animal life, and rational life. All living creatures possessed the first in the form of nutrition and reproduction, animals were additionally capable of sensation and locomotion, and humans also had rational souls. Plato’s subsequent influence in Christian theology may be apparent in spirit if not in detail. In Christian theology, human life was not only rational, but also involved an eternal, spiritual soul and an internal, conscious life.

Plato’s student, Aristotle, had a different notion in which living things had an appropriate form, material, and goal-directedness ( De Anima , 412a1–416b). Aristotle held life to be a form of self-motion, perpetuation, or self-alteration (Byers 2006). For Aristotle, the capacity to resist internal and external perturbations was the essential distinction between living beings and non-living objects. Other features were accidental. This quest for demarcating the essential from the accidental for life has persisted to this day in searches for theoretical definitions of life as well as in attacks against those not interested in such definitions.

Centuries later, Descartes drew a sharper distinction between animal life and rational life than between inanimate objects and animal life. This was a turn away from medieval approaches, which had taken the gap between vegetables and animals to be broader. For Descartes, animals are analogous to complex clocks and lack the inner or spiritual life central to the human experience (Descartes 2010/1664). As such, Descartes’ category of life neither mapped onto Greek conceptions nor current conceptual frameworks. The mechanistic view developed by Descartes and his followers is often thought to be continuous with current scientific thinking, but this is perhaps anachronistic, as much of the theoretical underpinning separating animal life and rational life is no longer accepted.

The responses to Descartes came to be grouped under the heading ‘vitalism.’ Vitalism, which spanned three centuries, was a heterogenous philosophical position unified by adherents’ doubt of a fully mechanistic view of life. Vitalists had ontologies of defining features of life as varied as immaterial causes, particular arrangements of matter, a special life fluid, a particular end goal, or even mental forces. A whiggish history of biology will declare the death of vitalism with Friedrich Wöhler’s synthesis of urea from ammonium cyanate. The suggestion is that if biological chemicals can be produced from mere chemistry, then biology is also mere chemistry. Although this was an important step, many chemists already had accepted a mechanistic world view, and many other researchers continued to develop vitalist theories well into the 20th century (Bergson 1959, Driesch 1905/1914).

The 20th century largely saw the mechanist/vitalist divide dissipate. Despite the difficulties described above about definitions, hundreds of scientists, philosophers, and others have tried their hand at defining life. Much of the interest is motivated by new science and new technologies – including artificial life, synthetic biology, origins of life, and astrobiology – which complicate the issue by violating some of the traditional groupings of properties associated with life. There are numerous books, articles, and workshops on the nature of life (Pályi et al. 2002, Popa 2004, Bedau & Cleland 2010).

Table 1. Some recent attempts at meta-categories for life definitions. Each column is one account’s categories, the rows are lined up according to rough similarity.

There are perhaps thousands of competing definitions proposed across hundreds of articles. A true survey of that variety would be beyond the scope of this article and beyond your patience as a reader. Nevertheless, some broad categories have been proposed that might offer some insight into current contending definitions. Table 1 summarizes three of the most rigorous attempts this century to categorize definitions of life.

Each of these authors used different approaches to arrive at their categories. Popa 2004 and Trifonov 2011 attempted to reverse engineer the categories from dozens of definitions collected from many dozens of experts, while Malaterre and Chartier 2019 conducted a more extensive, text-mining approach across 30,000 scientific articles selected from journals that published pieces in biology. As one can see, there are areas of rough overlap, but each categorization scheme has its own unique categories as well.

Most of the definitions considered by these authors straddle some of these distinctions and are often ambiguous as to whether they are intended to be theoretical definitions, operational definitions, or something else. For example, Popa 2004 considers definitions ranging from Oparin 1961’s “Any system capable of replication and mutation is alive” to Schulze-Makuch et al. 2002:

We propose to define living systems as those that are: (1) composed of bounded micro-environments in thermodynamic equilibrium with their surroundings; (2) capable of transforming energy to maintain their low-entropy states; and (3) able to replicate structurally distinct copies of themselves from an instructional code perpetuated indefinitely through time despite the demise of the individual carrier through which it is transmitted.

Categorizing definitions such as these necessarily requires some choices and reasonable people can disagree about whether each belongs in one or more categories.

The takeaway from current understandings of the definition of life is that there is no consensus forthcoming in the near future. One concern is that these are summaries of attempts to define a category for which there is only loose agreement. Many scientists disagree as to the phenomena a definition of life is intended to unify. Some scientists would include prions, viruses, and entities only hypothesized to exist in the origin of life, while others would completely reject them. Some might accept digital organisms as alive, others would deny this approach. Conceptual equivocation could have significant costs for research. One field recently quantified this cost, suggesting it is more than a merely theoretical concern (Trombley and Cottenie 2019). Given the diversity described above, one may be tempted to adopt a definitional pluralism : there are many ways to be alive. For some reason, that approach is not common in the literature.

Nearly everybody agrees there is a distinction between life and non-life, typically understood as a difference in kind rather than one of degree. Furthermore, most people involved accept that life is some sort of natural kind, rather than a human psychological concept. That said, a common theme in recent philosophical work has been to express skepticism of life definitions as a goal. The literature on the definition of life is vast, repetitive, and utterly inconclusive. Philosophers have disagreed as to the ultimate source of the lack of consensus, citing unstated assumptions in either the definer’s approach or the question itself. Note that many scientists are less likely to be skeptical of the goal of defining life, though also more resistant to engaging in the philosophical debate.

One skeptical view has arisen from the observation that theoretical definitions of life presume a theory of life (Cleland and Chyba 2002, Benner 2010, Cleland 2019). Although it is not obvious that the authors allude to the theory-theory of concepts, described in section 1, a common analogy is to early chemical theory. According to this analogy, early alchemists likened the alchemists’ Aqua regia (“royal water”) and Aqua fortis (“strong water”). Development of atomic theory revealed, Cleland argues, that the true nature of water was H 2 O, while the other ‘waters’ were HNO 3 + 3 HCl and HNO 3 , respectively. Cleland advocates avoiding definitions altogether, fearing they will blind us to new instances of life, and instead opts for tentative criteria, which she believes avoid the implicit dogma of even operational definitions.

Other authors have pointed out that the explanandum of life is itself up for debate (Tsokolov 2009, Mix 2020, Parke 2020). According to Emily Parke, some accept life as applying to individuals, whereas other definitions apply to collectives first (including entire planets) and individuals derivatively. Relatedly, most believe life is some kind of entity rather than some kind of relation or process (but see Nicholson and Dupré 2018). Parke also points out that some definitions seek a material basis, perhaps limiting life’s substrate to the biochemistry we know on Earth, while others are functional. Sagan famously worried about biochemical definitions because they were prone to ‘Earth Chauvinism’ for privileging our own biochemistry (1970). Other authors take our biochemistry to be independently justified as universal (Pace 2001, Benner et al. 2004, but see Bains 2004). Finally, Parke distinguishes between those that seek clean boundaries and those that accept the possibility of a continuum of ‘lifelikeness.’

Other authors have advocated a kind of quietism about definitions, maintaining that folk concepts need not match up with scientific ones (Machery 2011), any definitions would not change scientific practice (Szostak 2012), advocated a radical conceptual rethinking (Mariscal & Doolittle 2020), or denied the distinction between life & non-life entirely (Jabr 2013).

This last position of eliminativism could be expanded as it helps illustrate all other life skeptical positions. Cowie 2009 classifies eliminativist goals as either linguistic or ontological. Ontological eliminativists don’t believe the objects they are eliminating truly exist. We’re all eliminativists about something, perhaps ghosts or fairies. Linguistic/conceptual eliminativists, on the other hand are merely suspicious of theoretical terms or concepts, what Ramsey 2020 calls ‘category dissolution’ or ‘conceptual fragmentation.’ In essence, it’s not that there aren’t living things, it’s just that the category life is heterogeneous rather than a natural kind. According to Cowie, one can deny that anything matching our theoretical definition of life actually exists in the world while still accepting it as a useful fiction. Conversely, one may think scientific theories about life are fruitless or that the term is too vague and confused to be useful, without doubting life exists. If we accept any of these alternatives, we should perhaps avoid ever using the term ‘life’ in isolation and instead reference Metabolic Life and Evolutionary Life and all the other conceptions.

At play in these various forms of skepticism are several underlying assumptions. Among other disagreements, researchers disagree about what life is, whether it is a natural kind with an essence or a human construct; they disagree as to the purpose of defining life, especially if it will not change scientific practice; and they disagree as to the features of life that are relevant and the ones that are mere consequences. When researchers hold unstated assumptions such as these, they are liable to mistake the source of their disagreement.

The rest of this article will focus on uses of the various life concepts. Some of the definitions described above are derived from, or necessary for, specific scientific and societal purposes. This section focuses on artificial and synthetic life.

In principle, most contemporary scientists and philosophers believe life can be created, but there is broad disagreement as to what needs to be recreated for something to be life. In functional approaches, mere formal organization sufficiently similar to organisms may be enough. Complexly configured robots (“hardware”) or computer programs (“software”) might qualify. This view is known as Strong Artificial Life (A-Life for short) and has received much of the same pushback as the Strong Artificial Intelligence approach before it (Sober 1991, Boden 1999, Brooks 2001). Those who reject the Strong A-Life view believe that functional approaches miss some of the essential features of biology for either epistemic or ontological reasons. Epistemic objections might be consistent with the possibility of Strong A-Life, but doubt that we have the knowledge to recreate the relevant biological functions in a digital framework. Conversely, most of the objections to Strong A-Life have been ontological, resting on the view that representations cannot be equivalent to that which they represent and that perhaps life requires chemical embodiment, ruling Strong A-Life impossible by fiat.

Weak A-Life approaches, on the other hand, don’t presume the ontological equivalence of structurally similar circuits and cells. Instead, proponents suggest the more modest goal of developing a deeper understanding of life as we know it by exploring the effects of various parameters in simulations, effectively placing life in a broader context of possible biology (Langton 1989, 1995). For example, in the Terra program, software was pitted against other software for processing power (Ray 1993). Unexpected by the researchers at the time, software parasitism evolved: software would co-opt the reproductive processing of other software. Policing mechanisms also evolved, leading to an arms race between free-riders and the software trying to stop them.

Whether one accepts the strong or weak interpretation of A-Life, these in silico approaches are cheaper than equivalent work done in real organisms. They also offer possibilities that are not available in ordinary biology, such as programming alternative parameters to take the place of laws of nature and exploring relationships across deep time and space quickly and efficiently.

Another approach worth highlighting is that of synthetic life (“wetware”). Less conceptually troubled, synthetic life can also address some questions of A-Life, while allowing for a finer grain of realism. Synthetic life approaches have explored creating self-replication (Lincoln & Joyce 2009), minimal genomes (Koonin 2000, Hutchinson et al. 2016), a chemical evolution (Gromski et al. 2020), and other projects. Not all synthetic biology is in the business of investigating life as it could be, as not all computer programming is A-Life. Nevertheless, the tools developed by both can be illuminating. By exploring possibilities, scientists can discover previously hidden relationships, revealing which aspects of life are more or less plausible than expected.

Inextricable from the question of life’s nature is the question of its origin. Ancient and modern thinkers accepted that life often arose spontaneously from non-life. Two centuries of experiments eventually overturned this widely accepted view, culminating in Louis Pasteur’s swan-neck bottle experiments. Since then, the puzzle of Life’s origin has been one of the biggest and most important in all of science.

Darwin was famously silent about the problem, although in a letter to his friend Joseph Hooker, Darwin confided that he imagined life originating in “some warm little pond” (see Other Internet Resources below; and Peretó et al. 2009). Subsequent work on the subject was sparse until the 1920s when Alexander Oparin and J.B.S. Haldane independently proposed hypotheses for life’s origin in then plausible early Earth conditions (Haldane 1929; Oparin 2010/1936). As a graduate student in the 1950s, Stanley Miller tested the proposal, discovering dozens of amino acids in the mixture (1953). Since then, the field of origins-of-life studies has expanded dramatically.

Our earliest reliable records of this planet, some 3.5 billion years ago, contain distinctive evidence of microbial fossils, including distinctive shapes that correlate to the sizes and shapes of current prokaryotes, as well as carbon-ratios distinctive to life as we know it (Schopf 1993, Schopf et al. 2017). Many analyses have pushed our confidence in life’s earlier origin significantly further back, suggesting that basically as soon as Earth was not molten, it was filled with life (Pearce et al. 2018, Lineweaver 2020). How life started and why it started so quickly remains one of the most pressing open questions in science.

There are many open philosophical issues in origins of life research. Several of these are centered around the explanandum in question and epistemological limits to our knowledge. Researchers differ, for example, as to whether the purpose of origins-of-life research is to discover how life could have originated or how it did originate (Scharf et al. 2015, Mariscal et al. 2019). Some steps in the process could have been chancy, others could have been deterministic but highly contingent, still others could have been the only way life ever originates anywhere in the Universe.

There are several broad approaches to investigating the origin of life. “Bottom-Up” approaches begin with pre-biotic chemistry and explore how it could withstand stressors in order for lifelike entities to form and evolve. At present, there are many unsolved problems, most notably that most energetically favorable interactions would consume the proto-life forms involved. Scientists have cleverly attempted to ease the problem by relaxing assumptions: perhaps the environment provided our first boundaries (Koonin 2009), or perhaps it provided porto-genetic material (Mathis et al. 2017), all of this could have occurred in a viscous solvent instead of a cell (He et al. 2017), or on a surface (Wächtershäuser 1988), or using a variety of entities that eventually became encapsulated (Eigen & Schuster 1977). Nevertheless, the gulf between the pre-biotic chemistry and the simplest life forms is still huge and any number of explanations only account for a tiny portion of the conceptual distance.

Another approach, “Top-Down,” uses current taxa to infer the nature and timing of the origin of life on Earth. To do so, we take current examples of life on Earth and trace their ancestry, by comparing the nearly hundred shared genes, primarily associated with biological translation (Koonin 2011). All life shares a last universal common ancestor, “LUCA” for short. There may have been several origins of life, but our evidence is insufficient to distinguish this scenario from a single origin. Nevertheless, at least one origin, presumably in Earthly pre-biotic conditions, led to the existence of LUCA, an important constraint upon theorizing about the origin of life. It is widely expected that LUCA was merely one creature in a larger population and existed long after the origin of the first organism. There are also a variety of concerns with respect to LUCA: whether it was simple or complex (Mariscal & Doolittle 2015); whether it had a membrane that resembled any of the current membranes (Koonin 2011); whether the genes it contained were ancestors of our own genes or subsequently acquired (Doolittle & Brown 1994, Woese & Fox 1977; Woese 1998); whether its genome was made of DNA (Forterre 2006a), whether it was a heterotroph or autotroph; where it lived; and when it lived.

The gap between Top-Down and Bottom-Up approaches is huge: untold generations passed between pre-biotic chemistry and LUCA. We may never be able to solve Life’s origin, but each step brings us closer to understanding the trajectory.

Even the most pessimistic analyses of the likelihood of life suggests life on Earth is not unique (Frank & Sullivan 2016). Many scientists take that as a good reason to search for life elsewhere in the Universe. The current search for life elsewhere focuses on two extremes: the chemical byproducts of life and the technological signals of intelligent life. The social interactions of alien populations might be interesting, but they are hard to study as of yet. Thus, we search for biosignatures that might uniquely identify life from a great distance. We’ll take each in turn.

Biosignatures, as the name implies, are purported to be markers of life. Chemical biosignatures are compounds either rarely or never produced without the assistance of life on Earth. Finding biosignatures thus implies a material conception of life, likely in the form of biochemistry, metabolism, or thermodynamics. There have been many attempts to detect biosignatures, primarily on Mars. These approaches include experiments done on planetary surfaces, observations from Earth or low-earth orbit, and study of meteors and other debris from nearby planetary bodies.

More practically, satellite or telescope observations of other planets have been used to search for gasses outside of thermodynamic equilibrium. Methane has been sporadically detected on Mars since 2004 (Formisano et al. 2004, Webster et al. 2018) with an accompanying claim of formaldehyde detection (Peplow 2005). Venus has also been a source of attention, with phosphine gas detected in the clouds above Venus (Greaves et al. 2020). A controversial finding, it nevertheless caught the scientific imagination. Future scientific research is expected to accelerate this method of observation, especially with new data gathered by the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). With its equipment, JWST is able to image exoplanets at resolutions allowing the detection of gas biomarkers in the atmospheres of exoplanets (Loeb & Maoz 2013).

By contrast, there have been scarce attempts to detect chemical life while on the surface of another planet. In 1975, NASA sent the Viking landers to Mars, tasked with a variety of scientific experiments including some that were purported to detect life if it was present. One, the Labeled Release Experiment, did, but its results were inconsistent with the other on-board experiments, so the result was deemed inconclusive (Levin & Straat 1976, Ezell & Ezell 1984). The current Perseverence rover on Mars is able to assess certain biosignatures and upcoming missions by NASA, the Chinese National Space Administration, and the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency all seek to determine whether Mars has evidence of past or current life.

It is not obvious that life on Mars would be a separate origin than life on Earth, as the two planets exchange tons of rocks each year and it is at least theoretically possible that life could have formed on one planet and been subsequently transferred to the other (McKay 2010). Since Mars is a smaller body than Earth, it coalesced before Earth and thus it is conceivable that life might have formed there first, although this is a relatively marginal view in the astrobiology community. Meteorites from Mars and other planetary bodies have also been the source of purported biosignatures. The Martian meteorite ALH84001 was instrumental in forming the science of astrobiology in 1996, after NASA scientists discovered bacteria-like structures (McKay et al. 1996). Subsequent meteorites have also garnered scientific interest (e.g. White et al. 2014).

The other major attempt to search for life, that of searching for intelligence, more readily captures the imagination. The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) has been ongoing for centuries (Dick 1982). Fierce debates between those that took Earth to be unique and those that took it to be one of a plurality of worlds persisted for millennia (and still do, to some extent). Advocates of the plurality of worlds view searched their telescopes for evidence. A famous instance is Percival Lowell’s drawings of Martian canals in the 1890s. Influenced by the mid-1800s observations of what appeared to be channels criss-crossing Mars, Lowell drew a series of canals based on his observations. Science fiction soon picked up the observation and conjectured a dying civilization, hoping to squeeze water out of the last bits of remaining ice in the Martian poles.

Partially driven by the science fiction following Lowell’s drawings, the early 20th century saw increased interest in detecting radio signals from Outer Space. This interest accelerated after the launch of Sputnik in 1957 and was more systematically and formally approached starting in the late 1970s. SETI research has not been publicly funded since 1994, but private and public donors, as well as academic and lay researchers have kept the program going since. There are many technical challenges to the search: space is unimaginably huge, signals are weak, possibilities of interstellar communication are myriad, and our searches can only cover an insignificant portion of the task.

More controversially, many dozens of messages have been sent into Outer Space since 1974. A few have been in the form of physical objects aboard spacecraft, but most have been radio signals aimed at promising stars or star clusters. sometimes called Active SETI or METI (Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence). Although the practice continues due to its low cost and relative ease, many philosophers, scientists, and policy experts have come out against the practice largely due to the risk of broadcasting our presence to potentially hostile forces on behalf of future generations that cannot consent (Smith 2020).

Scientists grow more concerned about philosophical questions when scientific limitations or conceptual choices are made apparent to them. Those scientists who study deep time, deep space, abstract issues, or questions of ethics are often keenly aware of the philosophical choices that influence their research from identification of research question to interpretation of the data. This section briefly goes through other scientific contexts in which how life is defined is relevant, which address scales well below and well above the organism level.

There are several biological entities for which it is an open question as to whether they are alive. Viruses, for example, are units of genetic material encased in a protein coat. It is unknown whether all viruses share common ancestor (Koonin et al. 2006, Moreira and López Garcia 2009) nor how they originated, be it escaped transposable elements, reduced cells, or some ancestral third option (Forterre 2006b). The status of viruses as living is mired with controversy, with some people holding virons to be alive, others believing them not to be, and a third camp has them as living only in the context of an infected cell, but a mere ‘seed’ otherwise (Forterre 2010).

There are other entities in the “twilight zone of microbiology,” including transposable elements, viroids, unculturable (but putatively existing) microbes, organisms in vegetative states, and prions (Postgate 1999). The problems facing each of these are similar: several of them can evolve by natural selection, are biochemically complex, but lack other properties associated with life. For example, prions are protein products of life that can fold other prions in a way that allows for cumulative evolution (Li et al. 2010). They are rarely included in the category ‘life’ due to their inactivity in most settings and rather simple origin as a misfold of a functional protein.

If there is a twilight zone of microbiology, there is also a twilight zone of ecology. Organisms form populations, species, lineages, clades, and ecosystems. The status of each of these is an open question, but they have many of the same features associated with life as described above. Perhaps the strongest case can be made for eusocial insects, such as some ants, bees, wasps, and termites. In several species, there are rigid distinctions between the castes that reproduce and those that do not, with many of the latter serving the role of caring for the young (Hölldobler & Wilson 2009). One might note that entities above the organism level are as a rule less integrated and connected than the organisms that comprise them. This is perhaps a general feature of life: from the perspective of every item in the biological hierarchy, its parts are much more homogenous than it is. Our cells seem much more integrated and self-contained than our bodies, so, too, are individual insects more self-contained than the colonies to which they belong.

Most controversial has been the case of Gaia. Gaia is a term from Greek mythology; she is a personification of the planet Earth. In 1979, James Lovelock, revived the concept in his book, Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth . In his view, the Earth-wide set of interlocking ecosystems could be viewed as a single entity. One insight of Lovelock’s was already mentioned in the previous section: planet-wide interactions are the scale that matters in detecting life elsewhere. Lovelock’s book sparked controversy centered around the plausibility of his model of the Earth as a self-regulating homeostatic system. In the view of many at the time, it was an inaccurate description: Earth could not evolve in principle, and the subsequent ontological move of granting Earth the status of life was unmotivated (Doolittle 1981). Recent attempts to revitalize the notion of Gaia on a more theoretic footing involve both abiotic and biotic regulatory mechanisms and natural selection acting at the level of clades (Lenton et al. 2018, Doolittle 2019). Regardless of current attempts at a theoretical justification, the thought of Earth as a living entity motivated many in the environmental movement and the idea remains a common reference.

The term ‘life’ is important outside of biology. Often, the focus is not on the concept of life or life in general, but on the status of individual living entities. Typically, the focus is on the beginning and end stages of individual lives, which raises legal, religious, and moral questions. The start of an individual life has been the source of contraception and abortion discussions (Noonan 1967, Dellapenna 1978). Unfortunately, developmental biology does not provide an uncontroversial starting point for when ‘life’ begins (Maienschein 2014). The end of individual lives was also a heated debate in the 20th century as new technologies were able to keep human bodies alive long after they would have died in nature (DeGrazia 2016).

Any discussion of defining life in these contexts should begin by distinguishing between life and other phenomena that are often conflated with it in public discourse, such as sentience, personhood, and moral considerability. It’s unclear how much ontological, epistemic, or moral weight the category of life has independently of other properties. Attributing moral worth to non-living entities is still a minority position in environmental or comparative philosophy (but see Leopold 1949, Basl 2019). Thus, a starting position might be that life is a prerequisite for moral considerability. Nonetheless, most humans don’t mind killing bacteria for the sake of cleanliness and many people eat or wear the flesh of animals. So, in many discussions, life is only valuable when it is the vehicle for other equally nebulous properties like sentience, personhood, or immaterial souls.

If any living entities have a distinct moral or ontological status, most philosophers would accept that humans are among them (Rolston 1975, Goodpaster 1978). In these contexts, it matters when individual humans come into being and acquire such a status in their own right, be it conception, birth, or some time period in between. Considered opinions differ as to when this occurs and in virtue of what, be it mere possibility of self-sustained life, sentience, or other features. There is still a rampant pro-life/pro-choice split in cultural politics, which is somewhat lessened in European countries (Corbella 2020). There are equivalent, but less tendentious analogues in the contexts of euthanasia, the death penalty, war, and the prevention of death and disease. In these debates, both ethical and metaphysical commitments matter.

The public questions of life are often raised by new technologies. In the abortion discussion above, for example, new techniques to end pregnancies, from birth control to abortion procedures, as well as new medical technologies facilitating premature deliveries made the topic more contentious. Other technological innovations also raise questions about life. One such area is that of transhumanism (c.f. More and Vita-More 2013). Transhumanism is the movement aimed toward the use of technology for the human enhancement of social, psychological, and physical lives. These can range from prosthetics to implants or from pharmaceuticals to mental ‘uploading.’ There are bioconservatives, who argue against transhumanism for practical, moral, or aesthetic reasons. There are also posthumanists, who look forward to a world in which humans are replaced or eliminated by subsequent artificial intelligence. The debate over whether such posthumans might be ‘alive’ is similar in structure to the artificial life discussion in section 3. Bioconservatives also argue against this view. Among the topics in these debates are whether a particular technology counts as therapy or enhancement, whether the risks of alteration outweigh the benefits, whether certain goals of transhumanism are even possible, and which alterations will affect the moral or ontological status of the people that receive them.

That life is a source of ethical, legal, and political controversy is to be expected. And although it is beyond the scope of this article to adjudicate these debates, advocates ought to be aware of the deep vagueness in biology and disagreement within philosophy with respect to what life is, what an individual living organism is, when individual lives begin or end, and what features of life ground moral considerability.

Although the conceptual terrain of life concepts is well covered, there is no accepted view as yet. This is unlikely to change given the disciplinary backgrounds, explanatory values, and theoretical commitments of the stakeholders involved. A wide range of practices rely on competing conceptions of life: including artificial life, origins-of-life research, the search for life, and other projects described above.

Future scientific discoveries or inventions may break this impasse, as they have in other cases of theoretical gridlock. The development of atomic theory, discussed in section 2, created new categorical divisions that scientists accepted as more real than the categories of the ancients or alchemists. With this conceptual fragmentation, old categories were discarded and new ones accepted. One can imagine something similar happening in the case of life: many discoveries might show a clear cluster of how complex, lifelike entities can form from prebiotic chemistry, eventually winning over the majority of the scientific and philosophical community (e.g. Weber 2007, 2010).

Conversely, a simple decision might be made based on shared values or explanatory goals. The example of death may be illustrative. After decades of debate, a new decision, not a discovery, was made. Physicians concluded the irreversibility of death was the most important property for their purposes. They adopted the concept of whole-brain death as their operational criterion (DeGrazia 2016). The facts on the ground did not change, but the shared understanding did.

Finally, perhaps life will be accepted as a polysemous concept with each definitional cluster applying to a subset of the whole: biochemical life, evolutionary life, metabolic life, etc. Researchers may rely on context, accept some miscommunication, or simply stipulate the kind of life they mean. The example of planets, discussed in Brusse 2016 may help make this point. There was always a huge diversity within the category planet, which included the Sun and Moon until the Renaissance. In the early 1800s, asteroids were discovered. Initially, they were considered planets, they were demoted to ‘minor’ planets a few decades later, then simply ‘asteroids’ after the 1950s. Pluto was discovered in 1930, recognized as the smallest planet by the 1970s. From 1992 until 2006, many objects similar to Pluto were discovered until astronomers decided that the term planet actually covered at least two distinct, but scientifically interesting categories: typical planets and dwarf planets. Similarly, perhaps some of the categories described in section 1.2 will form the basis of accepted sub-categories of life.

It is still an open question as to how long the current situation will persist before a discovery forces a scientific reckoning or a decision obviates the need. For now, the debate continues.

Aristotle, De Anima (selections), in M.A. Bedau & C.E. Cleland (eds.), The Nature of Life: Classical and Contemporary Perspectives from Philosophy and Science , New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 9–14.
Bains, William, 2004, “Many chemistries could be used to build living systems,” Astrobiology , 4(2): 137–167.
Basl, John, 2019, The Death of the Ethic of Life , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bedau, Mark A., and Carol E. Cleland (eds.), 2010, The Nature of Life: Classical and Contemporary Perspectives from Philosophy and Science , New York: Cambridge University Press.
Benner, Steven Albert, 2010, “Defining life,” Astrobiology , 10(10): 1021–1030. doi:10.1089/ast.2010.0524
Bergson, Henri, 1907 [1959], L’évolution créatrice , Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Boden, Margaret Ann, 1999, “Is metabolism necessary?” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 50(2): 231–248. doi: 10.1093/bjps/50.2.231
Boyd, Richard, 1991, “Realism, Anti-Foundationalism and the Enthusiasm for Natural Kinds,” Philosophical Studies , 61(1–2): 127–148.
–––, 1999, “Homeostasis, species, and higher taxa,” in R. Wilson (ed.), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays , Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 141–185.
–––, 2010, “Homeostasis, Higher Taxa, and Monophyly,” Philosophy of Science , 77(5): 686–701.
Brooks, Rodney, 2001, “The relationship between matter and life,” Nature , 409(6818): 409–411 [ Brooks 2001 available online ].
Brusse, Carl, 2016, “Planets, pluralism, and conceptual lineage,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics , 53: 93–106.
Byers, Sarah, 2006, “Life as ‘Self-Motion’: Descartes and ‘the Aristotelians’ on the Soul as the Life of the Body,” The Review of Metaphysics , 59(3): 723–755.
Carey, Susan E., 1985, Conceptual Change in Childhood , Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
–––, 1988, “Conceptual differences between children and adults,” Mind & Language , 3: 167–181.
Cleland, Carol E., 2019, The Quest for a Universal Theory of Life: Searching for Life as we Don’t Know It (Vol. 11), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cleland, Carol E. and Christopher F. Chyba, 2002, “Defining ‘life,’” Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere , 32(40): 387–393.
Corbella, Mercedes, 2020, “Globally, seven in ten adults favor allowing abortion,” IPSOS, published online 17 August 2020 [ Corbella 2020 available online ].
Cowie, Fiona, 2009, “Why isn’t Stich an Eliminativist?” in D. Murphy and M. Bishop (eds.), Stich: And his Critics , Chichester: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 74–100.
DeGrazia, David, “The Definition of Death,”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/death-definition/ >.
Dellapenna, Joseph W., 1978, “The History of Abortion: Technology, Morality, and Law.” University of Pittsburgh Law Review , 40: 359–428.
Descartes, René, 1664 [2010], “Treatise on Man,” in M.A. Bedau and C.E. Cleland (eds.), The Nature of Life: Classical and Contemporary Perspectives from Philosophy and Science , New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 15–20; original translation by J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, and D. Murdoch, The Philosophical Writings of Descartes , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; original work published in 1664.
Dick, Steven J., 1982, Plurality of Worlds: The Origins of the Extraterrestrial Life Debate from Democritus to Kant , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Diguez, Antonio, 2013, “Life as a homeostatic property cluster,” Biological Theory , 7(2): 180–186.
Doolittle, W. Ford, 1981, “Is Nature Really Motherly?” CoEvolution Quarterly , 29: 58–63.
–––, 2019, “Making evolutionary sense of Gaia,” Trends in Ecology & Evolution , 34(10): 889–894.
Doolittle, W. Ford and James R. Brown, 1994, “Tempo, Mode, the Progenote, and the Universal Root,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 91(15): 6721–6728.
Driesch, Hans, 1905 [1914], The History & Theory of Vitalism , C.K. Ogden (trans.), London: Macmillan and Co., Limited.
Eigen, Manfred and Peter Schuster, 1977, “A Principle of Natural Self-Organization,” Naturwissenschaften , 63(11): 541–565.
Ezell, Edward Clinton and Linda Neuman Ezell, 1984, On Mars: Exploration of the Red Planet, 1958–1978 (NASA History Series: Volume 4212), Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Formisano, Vittorio, Sushil Atreya, Thérèse Encrenaz, Nikolai Ignatiev, and Marco Giuranna, 2004, “Detection of methane in the atmosphere of Mars,” Science , 306(5702): 1758–1761.
Forterre, Patrick, 2006a, “Three RNA cells for ribosomal lineages and three DNA viruses to replicate their genomes: a hypothesis for the origin of cellular domain,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 103(10): 3669–3674.
–––, 2006b, “The origin of viruses and their possible roles in major evolutionary transitions,” Virus Research , 117(1): 5–16.
–––, 2010, “Defining Life: the Virus Viewpoint,” Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres , 40(2): 151–160.
Frank, Adam and Woody T. Sullivan III, 2016, “A new empirical constraint on the prevalence of technological species in the universe,” Astrobiology , 16(5): 359–362.
Goodpaster, Kenneth E., 1978, “On being morally considerable,” The Journal of Philosophy , 75(6): 308–325.
Gopnik, Alison, and Andrew N. Meltzoff, 1997, Words, Thoughts, and Theories , Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Greaves, Jane S., Anita M.S. Richards, William Bains, Paul B. Rimmer, Hideo Sagawa, David L. Clements, Sara Seager, Janusz J. Petkowski, Clara Sousa-Silva, Sukrit Ranjan, Emily Drabek-Maunder, Helend J. Fraser, Annabel Cartwright, Ingo Muller-Wodarg, Zhuchang Zhan, Per Frieberg, Iain Coulson, E’lisa Lee, and Jim Hoge, 2020, “Phosphine gas in the cloud decks of Venus,” Nature Astronomy , 5: 655–664.
Gromski, Piotr S., Granda, Jaroslaw M. and Cronin, Leroy, 2020, “Universal chemical synthesis and discovery with ‘the chemputer,’” Trends in Chemistry , 2(1): 4–12.
Gupta, Anil, “Definitions,”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021 Edition), E.N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/definitions/ >.
Haldane, John Burdon Sanderson, 1929, “The Origin of Life,” Rationalist Annual , 148: 3–10.
Hampton, James A., 1979, “Polymorphous concepts in semantic memory,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior , 18: 441–461.
–––, 2006, “Concepts as prototypes,” in B.H. Ross (ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory (Volume 46), New York: Academic Press, pp. 79–113.
He, Christine, Isaac Gállego, Brandon Laughlin, Martha A. Grover, and Nicholas V. Hud, 2017, “A Viscous Solvent Enables Information Transfer from Gene-Length Nucleic Acids in a Model Prebiotic Replication Cycle,” Nature Chemistry , 9(4): 318–324.
Hölldobler, Bert and Wilson, Edward O., 2009, The Superorganism: the Beauty, Elegance, and Strangeness of Insect Societies , New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Hutchison, Clyde A., Ray-Yuan Chuang, Vladimir N. Noskov, Nacyra Assad-Garcia, Thomas J. Deerinck, Mark H. Ellisman, John Gill, Krishna Kannan, Bogumil J. Karas, Li Ma, James F. Pelletier, Zhi-Qing Qi, R. Alexander Richter, Elizabeth A. Strychalski, Lijie Sun, Yo Suzuki, Billyana Tsvetanova, Kim S. Wise, Hamilton O. Smith, John I. Glass, Chuck Merryman, Daniel G. Gibson, J. Craig Venter, 2016, “Design and synthesis of a minimal bacterial genome,” Science , 351(6280). doi:10.1126/science.aad6253
Jabr, Ferris, 2013, “Why Life Does Not Really Exist,” Scientific American , published 02 December 2013 [ Jabr 2013 available online ].
Joyce, Gerard F., 1994, forward, in D. W. Deamer, G. R. Fleischaker (eds.), Origins of Life: the Central Concepts , Boston: Jones & Bartlett, pp. xi–xii.
Komatsu, Lloyd K., 1992, “Recent Views of Conceptual Structure,” Psychological Bulletin , 112: 500–526.
Koonin, Eugene V., 2000, “How Many Genes can Make a Cell: the Minimal-Gene-Set Concept,” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics , 1(1): 99–116.
–––, 2009, “On the Origin of Cells and Viruses: Primordial Virus World Scenario,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , 1178(1): 47–64.
–––, 2011, The Logic of Chance: the Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution , New Jersey: FT press.
Koonin, Eugene V., Tatiana G. Senkevich, and Valerian V. Dolja, 2006, “The Ancient Virus World and Evolution of cells,” Biology Direct , 1(1): 1–27.
Langton, Christopher G., 1989, “Artificial life,” in C.G. Langton (ed.), Artificial life (Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity: Proceedings Volume IV), Redwood City, Calif.: Addison-Wesley, pp. 1–47.
–––, 1995, Artificial Life: An Overview , Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Lenton, Timothy M., Stuart J. Daines, James G. Dyke, Arwen E. Nicholson, David M. Wilkinson, and Hywel T.P. Williams, 2018, “Selection for Gaia Across Multiple Scales,” Trends in Ecology & Evolution , 33(8): 633–645.
Leopold, Aldo, 1949, A Sand County Almanac , New York: Oxford University Press.
Levin, Gilbert V. and Patricia Ann Straat, 1976, “Viking labeled release biology experiment: interim results,” Science , 194(4271): 1322–1329.
Li, Jiali, Shawn Browning, Sukhvir P. Mahal, Anja M. Oelschlegel, and Charles Weissmann, 2010, “Darwinian evolution of prions in cell culture,” Science , 327(5967): 869–872.
Lincoln, Tracey A. and Joyce, Gerald F., 2009, “Self-sustained replication of an RNA enzyme,” Science , 323(5918): 1229–1232.
Lineweaver, Charley H., 2020, “What Do the DPANN Archaea and the CPR Bacteria Tell Us about the Last Universal Common Ancestors?” in J. Seckbach and H. Stan-Lotter (eds.), Extremophiles as Astrobiological Models , London: Wiley, pp.359–367.
Loeb, Abraham and Dan Maoz, 2013, “Detecting Biomarkers in Habitable-Zone Earths Transiting White Dwarfs,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters , 432(1): L11–L15.
Lovelock, James E., 2000, Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Machery, Edouard, 2009, Doing without Concepts , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––, 2011, “Why I Stopped Worrying About the Definition of Life… and Why you Should as Well,” Synthese , 185(1): 145–164. doi: 10.1007/s11229-011-9880-1
Maienschein, Jane, 2014, Embryos Under the Microscope , Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Malaterre, Christophe and Jean-François Chartier, 2019, “Beyond Categorical Definitions of Life: a Data-Driven Approach to Assessing Lifeness,” Synthese , 198: 4543–4572.
Mariscal, Carlos, Ana Barahona, Nathanael Aubert-Kato, Arsev Umur Aydinoglu, Stuart Bartlett, María Luz Cárdenas, Kuhan Chandru, Carol E. Cleland, Benjamin T. Cocanougher, Nathaniel Comfort, and Athel Cornish-Bowden, 2019, “Hidden concepts in the history and philosophy of origins-of-life studies: A workshop report,” Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres , 49(3): 111–145.
Mariscal, Carlos and W. Ford Doolittle, 2015, “Eukaryotes first: how could that be?” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B (Biological Sciences), 370(1678): 20140322.
–––, 2020, “Life and Life Only: a Radical Alternative to Life Definitionism,” Synthese , 197(7): 2975–2989.
Mathis, Cole, Tanmoy Bhattacharya, and Sara Imari Walker, 2017, “The Emergence of Life as a First-Order Phase Transition,” Astrobiology , 17(3): 266–276.
McKay, David S., Everett K. Gibson, Kathie L. Thomas-Keprta, Hojatollah Vali, Christopher S. Romanek, Simon J. Clemett, Xavier D.F. Chillier, Claude R. Maechling, and Richard N. Zare, 1996, “Search for past life on Mars: possible relic biogenic activity in Martian meteorite ALH84001,” Science , 273(5277): 924–930.
Medin, Douglas L. and Marguerite M. Schaffer, 1978, “Context Theory of Classification Learning,” Psychological Review , 85(3): 207–238.
Miller, Stanley L., 1953, “A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions,” Science , 117(3046): 528–529.
Mix, Lucas John, 2018, Life Concepts from Aristotle to Darwin: On Vegetable Souls , New York: Springer.
–––, 2020, “Three Lives and Astrobiology,” in K.C. Smith and C. Mariscal (eds.) Social and Conceptual Issues in Astrobiology , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 57–78.
More, Max and Natasha Vita-More, (eds.), 2013, The Transhumanist Reader: Classical and Contemporary Essays on the Science, Technology, and Philosophy of the Human Future , London: John Wiley & Sons.
Moreira, David and Purificación López-García, 2009, “Ten reasons to exclude viruses from the tree of life,” Nature Reviews Microbiology , 7(4): 306–311.
Murphy, Gregory L., and Douglas L. Medin, 1985, “The Role of Theories in Conceptual Coherence,” Psychological Review , 92(3): 289–316.
Nicholson, Daniel J. and Dupré, John, 2018, Everything Flows: Towards a Processual Philosophy of Biology , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Noonan John T. Jr., 1967, “Abortion and the Catholic Church: A Summary History,” National Law Forum , 12: 85–131.
Nosofsky, Robert M., 1986, “Attention, similarity, and the identification categorization relationship,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition , 115(1): 39–57.
Oparin, Aleksandr Ivanovich, 1961, Life: Its Nature, Origin and Development , New York: Academic Press.
–––, 1936 [2010], “The Nature of Life,” in M.A. Bedau and C.E. Cleland, The Nature of Life: Classical and Contemporary Perspectives from Philosophy and Science , New York: Cambridge University Press; this translation by Ann Synge was first published in A. I. Oparin, Life: Its nature, origin, and development , New York: Academic Press, 1964, pp. 1–37.
Pace, Norman R., 2001, “The Universal Nature of Biochemistry,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 98(3): 805–808.
Pályi, Gyula, Claudia Zucchi, and Luciano Caglioti, (eds.), 2002, Fundamentals of Life , Paris: Elsevier.
Parke, Emily C., 2020, “Dimensions of Life Definitions,” in K.C. Smith & C. Mariscal (eds.), Social and Conceptual Issues in Astrobiology , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 79–90.
Pearce, Ben K.D., Andrew S. Tupper, Ralph E. Pudritz, and Paul G. Higgs, 2018, “Constraining the time interval for the origin of life on Earth,” Astrobiology , 18(3): 343–364.
Peplow, Mark, 2005, “Formaldehyde claim inflames Martian debate,” Nature , published online 25 February 2005. doi:10.1038/news050221-15
Peretó, Juli, Jeffrey L. Bada, and Antonio Lazcano, 2009, “Charles Darwin and the origin of life,” Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres , 39(5): 395–406.
Plato, Phaedrus , in Plato: Complete Works , J. Cooper and D. Hutchinson (eds.), Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997.
–––, The Republic , in Plato: Complete Works , J. Cooper and D. Hutchinson (eds.), Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997.
–––, Timeaus , in Plato: Complete Works , J. Cooper and D. Hutchinson (eds.), Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997.
Popa, Radu, 2004, Between Necessity and Probability: Searching for the Definition and Origin of Life , New York: Springer.
Postgate, John, 2000, “The Twilight Zones of Microbiology,” Microbiology Today , 27: 162–163.
Ramsey, William, “Eliminative Materialism,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/materialism-eliminative/ >.
Ray, Thomas S., 1993, “An evolutionary approach to synthetic biology: Zen and the art of creating life,” Artificial Life , 1(1/2): 179–209.
Rolston III, H., 2017, “Is there an Ecological Ethic?” in M. Wachs (ed.), Ethics in Planning , London: Routledge, pp. 299–317.
Rosch, Eleanor, and Mervis, C. B., 1975, “Family resemblance: Studies in the internal structure of categories,” Cognitive Psychology , 7: 573–605.
Rosch, Eleanor, 1978, “Principles of Categorization,” in E. Rosch and B.B. Lloyd (eds.), Cognition and Categorization , Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 27–48.
Riskin, Jessica, 2016, The Restless Clock: A History of the Centuries-Long Argument Over what Makes Living Things Tick , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sagan, Carl, 1970, “Life,” Encyclopedia Britannica , Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica Incorporated, pp. 1083–1083A.
Scharf, Caleb, Nathaniel Virgo, H. James Cleaves III, Masashi Aono, Nathanael Aubert-Kato, Arsev Aydinoglu, Ana Barahona, Laura M. Barge, Steven A. Benner, Martin Biehl, Ramon Brasser, Christopher J. Butch, Kuhan Chandru, Leroy Cronin, Sabastian Danielache, Jakob Fischer, John Hernlund, Piet Hut, Takashi Ikegami, Jun Kimura, Kensei Kobayashi, Carlos Mariscal, Shawn McGlynn, Brice Menard, Norman Packard, Robert Pascal, Juli Pereto, Sudha Rajamani, Lana Sinapayen, Eric Smith, Christopher Switzer, Ken Takai, Feng Tian, Yuichiro Ueno, Mary Voytek, Olaf Witkowski, and Hikaru Yabuta, 2015, “A Strategy for Origins of Life Research,” Astrobiology , 15(12): 1031–1042.
Schopf, J. William, 1993, “Microfossils of the Early Archean Apex chert: new evidence of the antiquity of life,” Science , 260(5108): 640–646.
Schopf, J. William, Kouki Kitajima, Michael J. Spicuzza, Anatoliy B. Kudryavtsev, and John W. Valley, 2018, “SIMS analyses of the oldest known assemblage of microfossils document their taxon-correlated carbon isotope compositions,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 115(1): 53–58.
Schulze-Makuch, Dirk, Huade Guan, Louis N. Irwin, E Vega, 2002, “Redefining life: An ecological, thermodynamic, and bioinformatic approach,” in G. Pályi, C. Zucchi, L. Caglioti (eds.), Fundamentals of Life , New York: Elsevier, pp. 169–179.
Slater, Matthew H., 2015, “Natural Kindness,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 66(2): 375–411.
Smith, J. David, 2002, “Exemplar Theory’s Predicted Typicality Gradient can be Tested and Disconfirmed,” Psychological Science , 13(5): 437–442.
Smith, Kelly C., 2020, “METI or REGRETTI,” in K.C. Smith and C. Mariscal (eds.), Social and Conceptual Issues in Astrobiology , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 209–235.
Sober, Elliott, 1991, “Learning from Functionalism: prospects for strong artificial life,” in C.G. Langton, C. Taylor, J.D. Farmer, and S. Rasmussen (eds.), Artificial life II (Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity: Proceedings Volume X), Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley, pp. 749–765.
Stewart, Potter, 1964, “Jacobellis vs. Ohio,” 378 U.S. 184, 197.
Szostak, Jack W., 2012, “Attempts to Define Life Do Not Help to Understand the Origin of Life.” Journal of Biomolecular Structure & Dynamics , 29(4): 599–600. doi: 10.1080/073911012010524998
Trifonov, Edward N., 2011, “Vocabulary of definitions of life suggests a definition.” Journal of Biomolecular Structure and Dynamics , 29(2): 259–266
Trombley, Carolyn A. and Karl Cottenie, 2019, “Quantifying the scientific cost of ambiguous terminology in community ecology,” Philosophical Topics , 47(1): 203–218.
Tsokolov, Serhiy A., 2009, “Why Is the Definition of Life So Elusive? Epistemological Considerations,” Astrobiology , 9(4): 401–412. doi:10.1089/ast.2007.0201
Wächtershäuser, Günter, 1988, “Before Enzymes and templates: Theory of Surface Metabolism,” Microbiological Reviews , 52(4): 452–484.
Weber, Bruce H., 2007, “Emergence of life,” Zygon , 42: 837–856.
–––, 2010, “What is Life? Defining Life in the Context of Emergent Complexity,” Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres , 40: 221–229.
Webster, Christopher R., Paul R. Mahaffy, Sushil K. Atreya, John E. Moores, Gregory J. Flesch, Charles Malespin, Christopher P. McKay, German Martinez, G., Christina L. Smith, Javier Martin-Torres, Javier Gomez-Elvira, Maria-Paz Zorzano, Michael H. Wong, Melissa G. Trainer, Andrew Steele, Doug Archer Jr., Brad Sutter, Patrice J. Coll, Caroline Freissinet, Pierre-Yves Meslin, Raina V. Gough, Christopher H. House, Alexander Pavlov, Jennifer L. Eigenbrode, Daniel P. Glavin, John C. Pearson, Didier Keymeulen, Lance E. Christensen, Susanne P. Schwenzer, Rafael Navarro-Gonzalez, Jorge Pla-García, Scot C.R. Rafkin, Álvaro Vicente-Retortillo, Henrik Kahanpää, Daniel Viudez-Moreiras, Michael D. Smith, Ari-Matti Harri, Maria Genzer, Donald M. Hassler, Mark Lemmon, Joy Crisp, Stanley P. Sander, Richard W. Zurek, Ashwin R. Vasavada, 2018, “Background Levels of Methane in Mars’ Atmosphere Show Strong Seasonal Variations,” Science , 360(6393): 1093–1096.
White, Lauren M., Everett K. Gibson, Kathie L. Thomas-Keprta, Simon J. Clemett, and David S. McKay, 2014, “Putative Indigenous Carbon-Bearing Alteration Features in Martian Meteorite Yamato 000593,” Astrobiology , 14(2): 170–181.
Woese, Carl R. and George E. Fox, 1977, “The Concept of Cellular Evolution,” Journal of Molecular Evolution , 10(1): 1–6.
Woese, Carl R., 1998, “The Universal Ancestor,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 95(12): 6854–6859.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

Weber, Bruce, “Life”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/life/ >. [This was the previous entry on this topic in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy — see the version history .]
Darwin, C., Letter to J. D. Hooker, 01 February 1871 , Letter no. 7471, Darwin Correspondence Project.

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Developing Your Personal Philosophy of Life

7 tensions to resolve..

Posted January 8, 2020 | Reviewed by Kaja Perina

From Plato to Stephen Covey, it’s long been argued that life is more meaningful if guided by a foundational personal philosophy .

To that end, here are seven tensions the resolutions of which can help you develop your personal philosophy. Of course, you could choose a moderate position within each of these polar pairs but often people choose to aim toward one side or the other.

Planning vs. living in the moment. Clichés exist on both poles. Ben Franklin said, “By failing to prepare, you’re preparing to fail.” On the other hand, Emily Dickinson wrote, “Forever is composed of nows.” In deciding which way you want to lean, it may help to look at your track record: To date, has your planning been worth it? Or has your planning too often been wrong? Has it shepherded you toward worthy paths or closed to you opportunities you should have taken? Or has your planning too often kept you from appreciating your present moments, always looking ahead as I foolishly did when, as a 20-year-old touring Paris, I raced through the Louvre so I could make it to the Tuilieries before closing time?

Practical vs. idealistic. We have been preached both: “Be realistic,” and on the other hand, “Dream big. Follow your passion.” Which side to tilt toward may depend on your self-efficacy : Bright, driven, non-procrastinators have a better chance of achieving their idealistic dreams or at least, as suggested in another cliché: “Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars,” (Norman Vincent Peale).

Disciplined vs. laid-back. Many people find it more pleasurable to be laid-back. The question is whether that will contribute, net, to your success and contentment, or at minimum, will the decrement to your success be worth it? On the other hand, some people enjoy the process of being disciplined or at least are willing to be disciplined in the service of more successful outcomes. The question is, “How about you?”

Reflective vs. impulsive. Some of this is hard-wired. Impulsivity has a significant genetic component , but it’s not completely genetic. Again, look at your track record: Have you been more successful by making quick decisions and thus getting more done? Or have you been more successful when taking your time, reflecting, considering more of the implications?

Just vs. merciful. Solid arguments can be made for leaning either way. Justice, by definition, means that people get what, on the merits, they deserve. How primary is that to you? Other people prefer a life tilted more toward mercy: Even if, on the merits, a person deserves less, the mercy-centric person leans toward giving people a break. How about you?

Self-critical vs. self-accepting. Some people feel it’s worth being hard on themselves: being self-critical and ever trying to improve. On the other hand, other people feel that’s too big a price to pay and/or that enough of who they are is hard-wired or has been molded by early experience and current externalities that they’d rather focus on self-acceptance.

Self-reliant vs. communitarian. There are quotable quotes at both poles. Charlotte Bronte in Jane Eyre wrote, “I care for myself. The more solitary, the more friendless, the more unsustained I am, the more I will respect myself.” In contrast, Hillary Clinton famously said, “It takes a village.” Again, look at your track record. Has your reliance on other people yielded more benefit than liability to you and perhaps to them? Or have you done better by focusing on self-reliance?

The takeaway

So, do you want to write bullets or a paragraph or two describing your personal philosophy? If so, yes, consider the aforementioned seven tensions but there may be other factors that merit consideration. A few possible examples: the role of spirituality or religion? Your work or relationship non-negotiables? Your ethical red line in the sand?

If you might find a model helpful, I offer my philosophy of life here.

Most people don’t follow their personal philosophy assiduously, but developing one can create guideposts that can help you live the life you want to live.

I read this aloud on YouTube.

Marty Nemko, Ph.D ., is a career and personal coach based in Oakland, California, and the author of 10 books.

Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Teletherapy
United States
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Personality
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Child Development
Therapy Center NEW
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

Coronavirus Disease 2019
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

Essay on Philosophy In Life As A Student

Students are often asked to write an essay on Philosophy In Life As A Student in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Philosophy In Life As A Student

Understanding philosophy.

Philosophy in life as a student is like a guidebook. It helps us make sense of the world around us. Philosophy is a way to understand life, the world, and our place in it. It’s not about big words or complex ideas. It’s about asking questions and seeking answers.

Importance of Philosophy

As students, philosophy helps us learn and grow. It teaches us to think deeply, question things, and find our own answers. It helps us make good choices and live better lives. Philosophy is not just for grown-ups or scholars. It’s for everyone, including students like us.

Applying Philosophy in Life

We can use philosophy in our daily lives. For example, when we face a tough situation, philosophy can help us think clearly and make the best decision. It can also help us understand other people’s views and respect them. This way, philosophy helps us be better friends, students, and citizens.

In conclusion, philosophy is a useful tool for students. It helps us understand the world, make good choices, and respect others. So, let’s embrace philosophy and let it guide us in our journey as students.

250 Words Essay on Philosophy In Life As A Student

What is philosophy.

Philosophy is a way of thinking about life, the world, and everything. It’s about asking big questions like “What is the meaning of life?” or “What is right and wrong?”.

Philosophy as a Student

As a student, philosophy can guide you in your studies and life. It helps you make choices and decisions. It can also help you understand other people’s ideas and beliefs.

Philosophy is important for students because it helps them think deeply and critically. It can help you solve problems, make better choices, and understand the world around you.

Creating Your Philosophy

Your philosophy in life as a student might be a mix of your beliefs, values, and goals. It could be about working hard, being kind, or always learning new things. It’s up to you to decide what your philosophy is.

Living Your Philosophy

Once you have your philosophy, it’s important to live by it. This means making choices and acting in ways that match your philosophy. It can help guide you through your studies and life.

In conclusion, philosophy is a powerful tool for students. It can help you understand the world, make good choices, and live a meaningful life. So, take some time to think about your philosophy in life as a student. It could make a big difference in your studies and beyond.

500 Words Essay on Philosophy In Life As A Student

What is philosophy in life.

Philosophy in life refers to a person’s way of thinking, their beliefs, and their guiding principles. It is like a map that shows us the way to lead our lives. Every student, like everyone else, has their own philosophy in life. This philosophy helps them make decisions, shapes their behavior, and influences how they see the world.

Importance of Philosophy for Students

As a student, having a philosophy in life is very important. It helps guide your actions and choices. For example, if you believe that hard work leads to success, you will put in your best effort in your studies. This belief will push you to work hard, even when things get tough.

Your philosophy in life also shapes your views about the world. It helps you understand why things happen the way they do. For instance, if you believe in the idea of ‘karma’, you might think that good actions lead to good results, and bad actions lead to bad results. This belief can help you make wise choices in life.

Developing Your Philosophy as a Student

How do you develop your philosophy in life? It starts with self-reflection. You need to think about what you value most in life. Is it honesty? Is it kindness? Is it hard work? Your values will form the basis of your philosophy.

Next, you need to think about your beliefs. What do you believe about the world? What do you believe about people? Your beliefs will also shape your philosophy.

Finally, you need to think about your goals. What do you want to achieve in life? Your goals will guide your actions and choices.

Once you have your philosophy in life, you need to live by it. This means making choices that align with your philosophy. For example, if you believe in honesty, you should always tell the truth. If you believe in hard work, you should put in your best effort in everything you do.

Living your philosophy also means standing up for what you believe in. If you see something that goes against your philosophy, you should speak up. For example, if you believe in fairness, you should stand up against unfair treatment.

In conclusion, having a philosophy in life is very important for students. It guides your actions, shapes your views, and helps you make wise choices. To develop your philosophy, you need to reflect on your values, beliefs, and goals. And once you have your philosophy, you need to live by it. This way, you can lead a life that is true to yourself and your beliefs.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Essay on Philosophy In Life
Essay on Philippines Visit
Essay on Philippines Taxation

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

This Quote Means: ‘An unexamined life is not worth living’, by Socrates

The need for introspection and meditative contemplation has been stressed for millennia. but why exactly is this, and what are some criticisms of this view we explain. quotes related to philosophy and by notable figures also form an important component of the upsc civil services examination (cse)..

Ancient Greek philosophy is most commonly associated with the trinity of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Among them, what we know about Socrates mainly comes from the writings of his student Plato, spanning themes such as Democracy, Governance, Beauty, and life itself.

Plato discussed these complex subjects by depicting dialogues between Socrates and various other characters in his writings. At age 70, Socrates is believed to have been sentenced to death for the “crime” of questioning the known wisdom of the time and corrupting the youth through his novel ideas.

Among the most well-known quotes attributed to Socrates is “An unexamined life is not worth living,” said during his trial by the jury of the city of Athens. The need for introspection and meditative contemplation, therefore, has been stressed for millennia.

But why exactly is this, and what are some arguments against it? We explain. Also, quotes related to philosophy and by notable figures form an important component of the UPSC Civil Services Examination (CSE).

The context

Plato (428/427 BCE) wrote about his teacher Socrates, who is said to have lived in the city of Athens. At the time, Athens was a state that had one of the first known forms of democracy, where citizens – those owning land, men, and those who were not slaves – had the right to participate in common decision-making.

They would meet at the town square, the Agora. However, Socrates was critical of such a system because it allowed people to be swayed by orators who lacked logic and substance and who were keen to appeal to people’s emotions instead.

Socrates’s criticism made him unpopular, as did his disdain for blind faith in the Greek gods. He was accused of multiple crimes and given the option to go into exile. During his trial, Socrates is believed to have rejected this and spoken about the importance of questioning things. He was eventually sentenced to death by drinking poison.

What the quote argues

Simply, it states that one’s life needs to be evaluated, actions and events need to be thought over, and it is these processes that make life worthy of living. In doing so, Socrates emphasises ethics, logic and morality as some of the barometres through which actions are judged.

On the face of it, this seems reasonable. Thinking about our actions and thoughts can lead to questioning our behaviour and course correct when required. When we think over larger aspects of the life we live, say why we act a certain way, or why we make certain assumptions, we can also challenge our own biases. It could help propel questioning of the larger systems that we observe around us – inequality, injustice, enmity, and so on.

On a more personal level, indulging in such thinking often also means that we can gradually understand our ethics and morality better, helping us navigate life and decision-making.

Examining the quote

Socrates’ quote has been critiqued from a range of perspectives over time. John J Stuhr, a professor of Philosophy at Emory University, wrote in The Journal of Speculative Philosophy in 2016 that there are three problems with the claim that the unexamined life is not worth living.

Nehru, Bose, or… Maulana Barkatullah? Who was India’s ‘first prime minister’?
What makes a total solar eclipse rare?
SC stays order against Uttar Pradesh madrasa law: A look at madrasa education in the state

Firstly, the intellectual effort involved in leading an examined life “may seem to involve too much work and hardship to be the only worthwhile life”, he writes. The saying “ignorance is bliss” touches upon this view in one way, that acquiring knowledge is also hard work.

Also, upon examining, we may come to conclusions about our negative traits or a situation where our behaviour was deplorable, or that the world or our circumstances themselves are deeply unfair and difficult. In that situation, mere examination will not provide comfort and could push a person towards a sense of cynicism.

Secondly, an examined life may be too unclear a concept and not everyone will have the tools to examine it meaningfully. In that sense, the whole exercise will not have much tangible benefit for that person. Or, the examination itself may rely too much on either emotions or rationality, leading to unsatisfactory conclusions.

Other critiques also discuss the difficulty of self-examination. We, as humans, are deeply coloured by our existing viewpoints and may find it impossible to be fair judges of our own lives. Many people may lack the resources or time to engage in such thinking. On the other hand, an overemphasis on analysing one’s own life may border on narcissism or an unhealthy obsession with the self. Particularly, only thought and no action would not be helpful for someone already feeling anxious and lost.

Therefore, while the essence of Socrates’s view holds resonance, especially in a world today where multiple sources of information claim to be correct and “right”, its problems of practicality and lack of specificity may be some hurdles in its practice.

Express Explained
UPSC Essentials

Rohit Sharma and wife Ritika Sajdeh had a fun time on The Great Indian Kapil Show.

Rohit Sharma and Shreyas Iyer were guests on The Great Indian Kapil Show, where they discussed their on-field dynamics and experiences. During the chat, Kapil directed questions to Rohit's wife, Ritika Sajdeh, who also serves as his manager, about her experiences managing the cricketer. The episode also witnessed Rohit opening up about the emotional toll of India's loss in the 2023 World Cup.

More Explained

Best of Express

EXPRESS OPINION

The Congress President spoke of the four pillars of the party manifesto being: youth, women, farmers, and workers. (File Photo)

Apr 07: Latest News

01 Virat Kohli left to do the heavy lifting again but Jos Buttler finds support act in Sanju Samson as RR keep 100% record
02 Mohammedan Sporting win first top-tier I-League title in 133 years; to join East Bengal and Mohun Bagan in ISL
03 3 BMCRI hostellers test positive for cholera, total rises to 10 in Bengaluru
04 Man from Bharuch dies 18 days after he was set ablaze at home
05 4 years after accused died, lawyer’s request to prove innocence in court denied
Elections 2024
Political Pulse
Entertainment
Movie Review
Newsletters
Gold Rate Today
Silver Rate Today
Petrol Rate Today
Diesel Rate Today
Web Stories

IMAGES

The Meaning Of Life Philosophy Free Essay Example
002 Essay Example My Philosophy Of Life On Goals And Aspirations
Meaning of Life Essay.docx
Life Philosophy Essay : Welcome to Reddit
Write Esse: Write a short essay of the philosophy of your life as a student
essay about your own philosophy in life

VIDEO

The Philosophy of Simply Let Life Be
Social Issues: Can Atheists Find Happiness?
Happy Life Essay in English 10 Lines
Philosophy of life / Tips on life from philosophers
Top 12 Philosophies About Life #philosophy #psychology
This PHILOSOPHY Changed my LIFE

COMMENTS

My Personal Philosophy of Life: [Essay Example], 495 words
Get original essay. One of the fundamental pillars of my personal philosophy is the power of positivity. I firmly believe that adopting an optimistic outlook can greatly enhance our overall well-being and contribute to a fulfilling life. By maintaining a positive mindset, we can overcome obstacles, remain resilient in the face of adversity, and ...
The Meaning of Life
The Meaning of Life. Many major historical figures in philosophy have provided an answer to the question of what, if anything, makes life meaningful, although they typically have not put it in these terms (with such talk having arisen only in the past 250 years or so, on which see Landau 1997).
My Philosophy of Life, Essay Example
I have known people who strongly believe in a positive viewpoint, for instance. Their life philosophies are based on seeking the good in the world around them, and I am certainly not about to argue with such beliefs. At the same time, I feel that such a way of thinking creates borders. It is a philosophy as a focus, and I do not believe that ...
Life Philosophy 101
In 1931 a volume of Living Philosophies was published by Simon & Schuster and includes short essays about their philosophy on life from notable figures including Albert Einstein. These insightful essays capture their perspective on the world including their beliefs and ideals. ... Your life philosophy can help you better understand yourself and ...
What Is The Meaning Of Life?
Ernie Johns, Owen Sound, Ontario. 'Meaning' is a word referring to what we have in mind as 'signification', and it relates to intention and purpose. 'Life' is applied to the state of being alive; conscious existence. Mind, consciousness, words and what they signify, are thus the focus for the answer to the question.
The Meaning of Life: What's the Point?
The meaning of life might be the true story of life's origins and significance.[7] In this sense, life cannot be meaningless, but its meaning might be pleasing or disappointing to us. When people like Tolstoy regard life as meaningless, they seem to be thinking that the truth about life is bad news.[8] 2.
PDF Philosophy for Everyday Life
Journal of Philosophy of Life Vol.5, No.1 (July 2015):1-18 [Essay] Philosophy for Everyday Life Finn Janning* Abstract The aim of this essay is two-sided. The first is to illustrate to what extent philosophy can contribute to our everyday living. The second is to illustrate how. The implicit thesis that I try to unfold in this experimental ...
The Meaning of Life
1. The Meaning of "Meaning". One part of the field of life's meaning consists of the systematic attempt to clarify what people mean when they ask in virtue of what life has meaning. This section addresses different accounts of the sense of talk of "life's meaning" (and of "significance," "importance," and other synonyms).
What Is Life?
Life is neither fixed nor absolute, it is ambiguous; life is the possibilities entailed by existence. Life is the consciousness of humanity; it is perception of the world and the universe. So life is sadness; life is death. Life is suffering and destruction. But life is also happiness; life is living.
The Meaning of Life
The Meaning of Life: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. A light and lively essay on a variety of facets of the question of life's meaning, often addressing linguistic and literary themes. Rejects subjective or "postmodern" approaches to meaning in favor of a need for harmonious or loving relationships.
My Personal Philosophy of Life, Essay Example
My philosophy of life is "life is not always easy and you have to work hard for what you want.". Though for someone it may sound like a commonplace, in fact it is not. Such philosophy came as a result of my life, of my experience, and I believe that it helps me to withstand difficult situations. As English proverb claims, if wishes were ...
Free Life Philosophy Essay Examples & Topic Ideas
In this article, our team has offered you some advice in writing such a complicated paper. You will also find free philosophy in life essay samples created by other students. We will write a custom essay specifically for you. for only 11.00 9.35/page. 809 certified writers online.
15 Personal Philosophy Examples That Will Inspire You
15 Personal Philosophy Examples. 1. "Be yourself; everyone else is already taken.". - Oscar Wilde. This is one of my favorite personal philosophies because it's so true. Be yourself and be proud of who you are - there's nobody else in the world like you, and that's a good thing! 2. "Treat others how you want to be treated.".
Life
The term 'life' is important outside of biology. Often, the focus is not on the concept of life or life in general, but on the status of individual living entities. Typically, the focus is on the beginning and end stages of individual lives, which raises legal, religious, and moral questions.
Developing Your Personal Philosophy of Life
Follow your passion.". Which side to tilt toward may depend on your self-efficacy: Bright, driven, non-procrastinators have a better chance of achieving their idealistic dreams or at least, as ...
Essay on Philosophy of Life
500 Words Essay on Philosophy of Life The Essence of Life. The philosophy of life is a broad topic that has been explored by numerous philosophers, thinkers, and scholars throughout history. At its core, it concerns the purpose, meaning, and nature of life, as well as the ethical, moral, and existential questions that arise in our everyday lives.
My Personal Philosophy of Life: Free Essay Example, 442 words
Pages: 1 (442 words) Views: 496. Download. Life is a journey filled with twists and turns, challenges and triumphs—a tapestry woven with experiences that shape our perspectives, values, and aspirations. My personal philosophy of life is a guiding compass that helps me navigate this intricate journey, providing a sense of purpose, meaning, and ...
Defining Happiness And What Makes A Good Life Philosophy Essay
One must remain active because a sedentary lifestyle is not beneficial to one's health. The "good life" is simply success though stability, accomplished goals and dreams, and a balanced lifestyle. Peace comes with contentment. Harmony is achieved through balance. Stability revolves around rationalization.
How to Write the Good Life Philosophy Essay
Preparing to Write Good Life Philosophy Essay. Create a Logical Structure. Start with an Introduction. A common topic of discussion in philosophy and moral philosophy is the concept of the good life. This article will discuss the basic mechanics of how a philosophy essay should be written and then apply these mechanics to a typical good life ...
Essay on Philosophy In Life As A Student
In conclusion, having a philosophy in life is very important for students. It guides your actions, shapes your views, and helps you make wise choices. To develop your philosophy, you need to reflect on your values, beliefs, and goals. And once you have your philosophy, you need to live by it. This way, you can lead a life that is true to ...
What is philosophy as a way of life?
The idea of "philosophy as a way of life" has been gaining currency both among the general public and among professional philosophers. Among the public, the interest can be seen in the increasing popularity of events such as Stoic Week, and in a variety of bestselling books. 1 Among professional philosophers, it can be seen in the surge of new grants, book series, and course offerings ...
This Quote Means: 'An unexamined life is not worth living', by Socrates
Ancient Greek philosophy is most commonly associated with the trinity of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Among them, what we know about Socrates mainly comes from the writings of his student Plato, spanning themes such as Democracy, Governance, Beauty, and life itself. Plato discussed these complex ...

My Personal Philosophy of Life

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

Still can’t find what you need?

Related Essays on Personal Philosophy

Related Topics

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

Life Philosophy 101 – An Introduction

Introduction to Life Philosophy Resources

Key Concepts about Personal Philosophies

The importance (value) of your personal philosophy in life.

Why aren't personal philosophies taught on a wider basis?

What can be included in your personal philosophy?

Using your personal philosophy in your life.

Common Misconceptions About Personal Philosophies

Like philosophy in general, personal philosophies are esoteric and don’t have practical value.

I already know my personal philosophy. I don’t need to develop it.

Navigate 101 by Topic

The Meaning of Life: What’s the Point?

1. Questioning the Question

2. Supernaturalism

3. Nihilism

4. Naturalism

5. Conclusion

Related Essays

PDF Download

About the Author

Follow 1000-Word Philosophy on Facebook and Twitter and subscribe to receive email notifications of new essays at 1000WordPhilosophy.com .

Discover more from 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology

Question of the Month

Next Question of the Month

How to Subscribe

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section The Meaning of Life

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

Other Subject Areas

The Meaning of Life by Thaddeus Metz LAST REVIEWED: 11 November 2019 LAST MODIFIED: 10 May 2010 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195396577-0070

My Personal Philosophy of Life, Essay Example

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Free Life Philosophy Essay Examples & Topics

Helpful Life Philosophy Examples

Tips for Philosophical Essay about Life

227 Best Essay Examples on Life Philosophy

Reflection Paper About Values

Individual Perspective on Responsibility

Changes in Life: Positive and Negative Effects

Kant`s View on Homosexuality

Money, Happiness and Relationship Between Them

“The Ways We Lie” by Stephanie Ericsson

Life is a Sea of Suffering, and Sorrow Gives Meaning to Life

Can a Person Choose to Be Happy?

Money, Success, and Relation Between Them

Philosophy of Leisure and Recreation

Changes in American Sexual Values Since 1950s

Happiness and Success as a Life Meaning

Symbol as an Integral Part of a Human’s Life

Money, Happiness and Satisfaction With Life

The Meanings of Lives by Susan Wolf

Philosophy as a Way of Life

The Greatest Source of Human Frustration or Misery

Beach: A Review of the Term

Sigmund Freud’s Ideas of Happiness

Conceptual Metaphor: Life Is Like a Game of Chess

“The Fallacy of Success” by G. K. Chesterton

“What Is the Meaning of Life?” in the Works of Gilgamesh and Agamemnon

Solitude, Doxa, and Relativism in Human Relations

The Wisdom of Silenus: The Meaning of Life & Death

Philosophy and the Meaning of Life

Kant’s Moral Philosophy: Cheaters

The Search for Meaning or Purpose of Existence

Purpose and Vulnerability in Human Life

Changed Views of Happiness: Context and Aim of the Definition

Wellness of Creativity Within the Society

Socrates as Depicted in Equal Opportunities

Key to Success in Life

Albert Camus’ Sisyphus Treatise and The Plague Review